Retrieve available eSignature templates to streamline contract creation and management processes.
Lists the templates.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_templates"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists,' which weakly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination, authentication requirements, returned fields, or whether all templates are returned.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and starts with the verb. It is concise, though its brevity makes it feel minimal and somewhat redundant with the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only information an agent has about the return value or side effects. 'Lists the templates' is too sparse to confirm the result type, the fields returned, or whether any filtering occurs. For a zero-parameter tool it may be usable, but it is not complete enough to reliably distinguish behavior from sibling list/query tools.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add or clarify.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a concrete resource ('templates'), so the basic operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling query_template, and 'the templates' is underspecified, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus query_template, list_recent_contracts, or list_template_collaborators, and no mention of when not to use it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the single verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.