get_template_versionGet detailed information about a specific email template version by supplying its template ID and version ID, enabling review of version-specific content and settings.
Retrieve details of a specific template version
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_id | Yes | ID of the version to retrieve | |
| template_id | Yes | ID of the template |
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 provide readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, and the description only restates the retrieval nature without adding behavioral context. It does not mention return format, possible errors, or any side effects, though it does not contradict 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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, but it is slightly too terse to also provide usage differentiation or behavioral detail, so it does not earn a 5.
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?
This is a simple read-only retrieval tool with two clearly documented parameters and strong annotations, so the description does not need much more. However, it lacks any mention of what 'details' include, and it does not clarify how this relates to similar template tools, leaving some context gaps.
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 both parameters have clear descriptions: 'ID of the version to retrieve' and 'ID of the template'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('details of a specific template version'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_template, update_template_version, and delete_template_version. The inclusion of the word 'version' removes ambiguity about which object is being fetched.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_template or list_templates. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.