Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monacloud-mcp

monacloud-mcp

Official
by mona-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Chi tiết MONA Agent template

agent_templates_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a template's README, AGENTS.md, tools, deploy, checklist, and skills to review setup, usage, and deployment guidance.

Instructions

Đọc README, AGENTS.md, tools, deploy, checklist và skills của một template.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "template": "<template>"
    },
    "name": "agent_templates_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the response spans multiple named artifacts (README, deploy, checklist, skills), but says nothing about the openWorld implication or the shape/size of the returned payload.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumerated artifacts are the most useful content it could carry. Efficient, if minimal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description covers the minimum: what is read and from where. It leaves the return structure (how the multiple artifacts are keyed) and the slug semantics unaddressed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description never explains that 'template' is a slug matching ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{0,79}$ (lowercase, hyphenated, max 80 chars), so an agent has no guidance on accepted values beyond the bare pattern.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete verb ('Đọc') and a specific resource set: README, AGENTS.md, tools, deploy, checklist, skills of one template. This is clearly a detail-fetch counterpart to agent_templates_list, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No indication of when to use this versus agent_templates_list, no prerequisites, no mention of what happens with an invalid slug. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools