List the server's template layouts, where shared header, footer, and styling live. Use it to inspect or choose a layout for your emails.
List the template layouts of the server. A layout wraps every template that uses it, so header, footer and styling live in one place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context—layouts wrap templates and centralize header/footer/styling—but does not describe behavioral details like response shape or ordering. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningful domain context without unnecessary length.
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-argument, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned and explains what a layout is. The absence of an output schema is acceptable given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of a get_layout sibling for detailed access.
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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, and the description does not misleadingly imply any parameters.
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 names the operation ('List') and resource ('template layouts of the server') precisely, making it clear this returns the set of layouts rather than one layout. It does not explicitly contrast with get_layout or list_templates, so it falls just short of fully distinguishing itself from siblings.
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 implies its use case: retrieving all template layouts. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over get_layout, create_layout, or list_templates, and it mentions no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.