Retrieve a named DevOps template to standardize project documentation and tracking. Use to quickly access consistent templates for trackers, runbooks, and state files.
Get a file template by name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the template (e.g., "TRACKER-template", "CURRENT-STATE-template") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without specifying whether the return value is raw file content, metadata, or something else, nor does it mention error behavior or side effects. For a retrieval tool this is a minimal but notable gap.
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 one direct sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise and scannable.
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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly sufficient for making a correct call. However, it does not clarify what a file template is or what the tool returns, and since there is no output schema, that missing return-value context leaves a gap in completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name' aligns with the required name parameter but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own examples like 'TRACKER-template'. The schema already fully documents parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('file template by name'), so an agent can tell this fetches a specific template. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_templates or render_template, leaving some ambiguity about the difference between getting a raw template and rendering one.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the listed sibling tools such as list_templates or render_template. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage context must be entirely inferred from the name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.