Retrieve a complete list of pre-designed templates across professional design styles, such as Bento Grid, Corporate, Luxury, Minimalist, AI & Tech, and Retro 80s.
Lists all pre-designed templates across all professional design styles (Bento Grid, Corporate, Branding, Luxury, Minimalist, AI & Tech, Retro 80s, Y2K Rave, Bauhaus, Neobrutalism, Art Deco, Memphis Pop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive read ('Lists all'), but says nothing about what is returned (IDs, names, previews), whether the result feeds canvas_load_template, or any pagination/limits. That is a meaningful gap for a discovery tool with zero structured behavioral coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first. The 12-item style enumeration consumes most of the sentence and is more inventory than selection guidance, but it stays within one sentence and does convey scope.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool the description is close to adequate, but it omits the key connective detail: what the listed items look like and how they relate to canvas_load_template. The agent knows what it gets, not what to do with it.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (pre-designed templates) plus the scope of coverage (all professional design styles). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling canvas_load_template, which consumes the same template set.
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?
The description contains no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative canvas_load_template. The browse-then-load workflow is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.