get_templateRetrieve a specific email template's details and all its versions by providing the template ID. Use this to inspect template content and version history before sending.
Retrieve details of a specific template including all versions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | ID of the template to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by specifying that all versions are included, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a simple read operation the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 a single, concise, grammatically complete sentence with no filler. The key action and the distinctive 'including all versions' scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.
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 one-parameter read-only retrieval with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly: it identifies the resource, the parameter scope, and the return coverage. It does not detail the exact response structure, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter template_id is clearly described as the ID of the template to retrieve. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('details of a specific template'), and a distinguishing scope ('including all versions'). This differentiates it from the sibling get_template_version, which targets a single version, and from list_templates, which lists templates.
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 the tool is for retrieving a single template with all versions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over get_template_version or list_templates. There are no exclusions or alternative routing signals, leaving the decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.