list_templatesRetrieve all available email templates, including their {{variable}} placeholders, so you can select one for composing or sending a message.
List all available email templates. Templates are TOML files in ~/.config/email-mcp/templates/ with {{variable}} placeholders for subject and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about where templates live and their TOML/placeholder format, but discloses nothing about return shape or ordering beyond that.
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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by describing template format and location.
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 zero-parameter list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, this is largely complete. The only minor gap is the absence of any detail about what the listing returns (names only vs. contents), though no output schema exists.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax or semantics to document, and the description adds no parameter-related detail (none is 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 (List) and resource (email templates) clearly. An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like apply_template, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest sibling list_presets.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose of discovering templates before applying them is only implied, and there is no routing to or away from related siblings like apply_template or list_presets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.