Retrieve a specific text message template by its ID from Follow Up Boss to reuse or review saved message content.
Retrieve a text message template by id. (GET /textMessageTemplates/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve' and gives the endpoint; it doesn't disclose whether the template is returned in full, whether deleted templates are included, authentication requirements, or error behavior. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 concise sentence with the endpoint path included. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. The endpoint path is arguably redundant with the tool name but adds useful precision without bloat.
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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't mention what the response contains, whether extraQuery is needed for this endpoint, or any special behavior. Given the sibling list includes both get_template and get_text_message_template, more context about template types would help.
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 coverage is 50%: the 'id' parameter is documented only by name/type, and 'extraQuery' has a rich description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains extraQuery well. The 'id' parameter's semantics are obvious from the tool name and endpoint, so baseline 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') and resource ('text message template by id'), and includes the endpoint path for clarity. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_text_message_templates and create_text_message_template, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 a simple retrieval use case by id, and the endpoint path adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_text_message_templates or get_template, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.