action1-mcp-server

Get action template details

action1_get_action_template

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full details, including parameters and supported platforms, for a single Action1 action template by ID to verify its configuration before use.

Instructions

Fetch full details (parameters, supported platforms) for a single action template by id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_id`	Yes	Action template id.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations confirm it is read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by stating exactly what data is retrieved: 'full details (parameters, supported platforms)'. This goes beyond the basic operation of fetching an ID and informs the agent about the structure of the expected output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The tool is described in a single, highly dense sentence, and every phrase contributes directly to defining the tool's utility. There is zero structural waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool relies on a simple ID lookup and safety is covered by annotations, the definition is highly complete. It specifies both the inputs needed for execution and the scope of the data returned, which is sufficient for a successful API call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline of 3. The description provides only marginal semantic value by clarifying that 'full details' includes parameters and supported platforms, information already implied by the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly defines the resource ('action template details'), specifying it retrieves data for a 'single' entity using an 'id'. This makes it unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description is functional but does not provide explicit guidance on usage context (when to use this vs other templates). However, since it is a simple GET operation by a primary identifier, implied usage is generally sufficient, placing it in the baseline category.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server