list_caption_templatesRetrieve built-in and saved caption templates with their slugs, display names, and style summaries so users can select the right style for a video project.
List the user's caption templates (builtin + saved). Returns slugs, display names, and style summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 still adds value by disclosing the result composition (builtin templates mixed with user-saved ones) and the shape of each entry, which an agent couldn't infer from the empty schema.
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?
Two compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return shape immediately after. No filler, no restatement of the title alone.
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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing missing from structured data: what each returned entry contains (slug, display name, style summary). An agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.
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. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that don't exist.
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 and resource ("List the user's caption templates") and disambiguates scope as "builtin + saved", plus names the fields returned. The verb alone separates it from the apply/save/delete_caption_template siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: mentioning that slugs are returned signals this is the discovery step before apply_caption_template, but the description never says when to use this versus list_brand_kits-style alternatives or that slugs feed other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.