Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Timbre

Timbre

by alejandrosml
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

list_templates

Read-only

Lists saved message templates, their requested fields, and Mail signatures to help you select the correct template when composing email.

Instructions

Message templates kept with save_template, with the fields each asks for, and the signatures made in Mail.

Tool call template

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_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templatesYes
signaturesYesThe signatures made in Mail, by name (create_draft's signature).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that templates include the fields each asks for and that signatures made in Mail are included, which is useful content context, but it does not describe return format or other behavioral details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main resource, though the phrasing 'with the fields each asks for' is slightly awkward.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what is included (templates, their fields, signatures), and return details are covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument list operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resources (message templates and signatures) and ties templates to save_template, but it lacks a clear verb like 'list' and reads as a noun phrase. An agent can infer the purpose from the name and annotations, but the description itself is not explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references save_template as the place templates are kept, but does not say 'use this to list templates' or 'use save_template to create them,' leaving usage to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools