Skip to main content
Glama

List service templates

template_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists built-in multi-service templates with names, summaries, and service counts so you can choose a fixed private stack before planning.

Instructions

Return built-in multi-service template names, summaries and service counts. Use template_list to choose a fixed private stack before template_plan; recipe_list offers app-specific recipes and configuration advice instead. Reads the built-in catalog only, without registry writes; templates never install or start third-party applications.

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": "template_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
templatesYes
schema_versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-annotation context: it reads only the built-in catalog, performs no registry writes, and templates never install or start third-party applications. It stops short of covering pagination or catalog-size limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences with no filler: return shape first, routing second, behavioral limits last. Every clause carries information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still summarizes them. For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the definition gives the agent everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does add return-shape hints (names, summaries, service counts) that map to the output schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return built-in multi-service template names, summaries and service counts'), immediately telling the agent exactly what payload to expect. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling recipe_list, which offers app-specific recipes instead.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use template_list to choose a fixed private stack before template_plan', and names the alternative (recipe_list) with the condition that selects it. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else are stated.

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