Retrieve available LegendKeeper resource templates with IDs, names, and parent details for a project. Use the results to pick a template and instantiate it via create_from_template.
List resource templates (id, name, parent). Use create_from_template to instantiate one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Configured project (world) name. Omit to use the default project; see list_projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. With no output schema, the description's listing of returned fields (id, name, parent) adds genuine value, but it says nothing about scoping, ordering, or whether templates come from a fixed catalog vs the project.
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 sentences, zero waste. The core action and returned fields are front-loaded and the related tool is named second.
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 simple no-required-param read tool, the description plus annotations plus the fully documented schema cover everything necessary to invoke it. It could note how many templates are expected or whether the project argument filters the listing, but nothing critical is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% – the single 'project' parameter is fully documented, including its default and a cross-reference to list_projects. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List resource templates') and even names the returned fields (id, name, parent), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It partially differentiates from create_from_template by framing that tool as the instantiation step, but it doesn't distinguish itself from other list_* 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 second sentence points to create_from_template as the follow-on action, which implies the tool's role in a workflow. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like browse_tree or get_resource, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.