Retrieve a contract template's metadata, placeholders, signer fields, and document elements by providing its template ID.
Responds with the template details, template_id, title, labels, created_at, list of the Placeholder fields in the template, list of Signer fields int he template, and the full content inside document_elements
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | GUID of the template. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by saying 'Responds with' and lists output fields, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe error behavior, permissions, or side effects.
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?
The description is a single run-on sentence containing a typo ('int he'). It is front-loaded with 'template details' and lists the returned fields, but the structure is jumbled and could be clearer if broken into a sentence and a list.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining what is returned. It lists most key fields and mentions document_elements content, but it does not clarify the response structure, whether some fields are optional, or what happens for a nonexistent template_id.
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 100% and the only parameter, template_id, is already described as a GUID of the template. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so a 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 that the tool responds with template details and enumerates specific fields (template_id, title, labels, created_at, placeholders, signers, document_elements), making the resource and output clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_templates and query_contract, though 'Responds with' is a weak action verb and the read behavior is only implied by the tool name.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_templates or query_contract. The description only reports what is returned and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.