Lists FreeMarker code templates from db/templates so you can inspect generator sources and identify templates to override; filter by substring with optional row limits.
List the FreeMarker code templates shipped in db/templates (used by the generator; also the source for user-template override).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows | |
| query | No | Substring filter, e.g. usbd_cdc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' plus a filesystem location implies a safe read, and the db/templates provenance is useful context, but it does not say whether user-overridden templates appear in the results, whether results are truncated at the default limit of 300, or what the entries look like.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence identifies the resource and location first, then supplies provenance in a parenthetical. No filler, though the trailing clause 'source for user-template override' is dense enough to be ambiguous rather than clarifying.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and where the data lives. It leaves the key ambiguity unresolved: whether the listing reflects shipped templates only or also user overrides, which is exactly what an agent overriding a template needs to know.
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%, so both 'limit' (max rows, default 300) and 'query' (substring filter with an example) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching semantics, or default behavior beyond what is structured, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (List) and a precise resource (FreeMarker code templates shipped in db/templates), which cleanly separates it from the many project/mode/board list tools in the sibling set. It stops short of naming any related tool, but no template_* sibling exists to disambiguate against.
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 parenthetical 'used by the generator; also the source for user-template override' implies why an agent would call it (to discover a template before overriding it), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no pointer to whatever tool applies the override.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.