get-templateRetrieve a template by ID to access its full content and every version sharing the same alias, so you can inspect or reuse the correct email template.
Retrieve a template by ID with full content and all other versions sharing the same alias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template ID (tem_xxx format). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the name: it returns full content and all other versions sharing the same alias. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether 'full content' means rendered or source form.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key information (retrieve by ID, full content, alias versions) is all in the opening clause.
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 one-param read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers what the tool does and what comes back at a high level. The main remaining gap is that the return shape ('all other versions') is only described loosely.
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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema with the tem_xxx format. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond restating 'by ID', 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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('template') with a clear key ('by ID') and scope (full content plus all versions sharing the alias). This is enough to distinguish it from list-templates, though sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by 'by ID': use this when you already know the template ID, not for discovery. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. list-templates) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.