Retrieve template collaborators' GUIDs, names, emails, and template editing links. Use this to manage access or contact collaborators for a specific template.
Returns the list of template collaborators, including their GUID, name, email, and the HTTPS link for editing the template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating that this is a read operation; 'Returns' does suggest that, and the listed fields preview the response. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, pagination, or behavior for an invalid template_id.
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 states the operation and the most useful output fields with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input template and the returned collaborator fields. It lacks only minor semantics such as pagination or error behavior, which are less critical for a simple list tool.
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 schema provides only a required string template_id with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly clarifies that the parameter identifies the template whose collaborators are listed, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints.
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 ('Returns the list') and resource ('template collaborators'), and it names the key fields included. This makes the tool easy to distinguish from siblings like add_template_collaborator and remove_template_collaborator.
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 the tool is for retrieving collaborators on an existing template, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. The use case is reasonably clear for a simple list operation, but no routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.