Retrieve a list of all mailing templates from your Little Green Light CRM.
List all mailing templates
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_mailing_templates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It does not disclose important traits like return format, ordering, or whether the list is exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant information. It is optimally concise for a tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient for a basic list operation. However, it would benefit from briefly indicating what the output contains (e.g., template names and IDs).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate given zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all mailing templates' is a specific verb-resource pair that precisely communicates the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on different entities (e.g., list_email_addresses, list_gifts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is simple and siblings are for different resources, the description lacks any explicit when/when-not or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.