list_templatesRetrieves saved e-signature templates, including PDF fields, signer or approver roles, and direct links, so you can choose one to send.
Saved templates (a PDF with placed fields and named signer roles; approver_slots lists roles that approve instead of sign) and their direct links. Use send_from_template to send one.
| 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses domain semantics (a template is a PDF with placed fields and named signer roles, approver_slots holds approving roles), but says nothing about return format, pagination, or scope limits for a list operation.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the resource and return content front-loaded and the routing hint at the end. The parenthetical definition is dense but earns its place by explaining approver_slots; nothing is padded.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it covers only direct links and the approver_slots concept. Other likely fields (template id, name, signer roles) and any list limits are unaddressed, leaving the picture only partially complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and no schema gap for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?
The description states the resource (saved templates) and what is returned (their direct links), and even defines what a template is via the parenthetical. It reads clearly against list_documents, though the verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than restated.
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?
"Use send_from_template to send one" explicitly routes the agent to the sibling for the send action, which implies this tool is the discovery step before sending. There is no explicit when-not or prerequisite statement beyond that routing, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.