easysociable-mcp

Get authoring draft

get_template_draft

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full template draft details by draftId to inspect layer AST, slot contracts, theme bindings, and validation errors before updating or publishing.

Instructions

Fetch complete authoring draft details by draftId, including full layer AST, slot contract definitions, theme bindings, and validation error logs. Call before update_template_draft or publish_template_draft to inspect draft structure and check validation status. Alternatives: Use list_template_drafts to discover draftIds. Read-only query scoped to draft owner. Returns full TemplateDraft AST entity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draftId`	Yes	The unique draft identifier to retrieve.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Draft ID.
`name`	No	Draft name.
`authoringSource`	No	Layer AST and slots.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.17Oct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "authoringSource": {
+      "description": "Layer AST and slots.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Draft ID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Draft name.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.16Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / draftId / description
```
Added value: +"The unique draft identifier to retrieve."
```
First observedv0.1.13Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description nevertheless adds real context: the operation is a read-only query scoped to the draft owner (an auth/scoping constraint not in annotations) and previews the payload shape. It doesn't discuss pagination or response size, but for a single-entity fetch that is minor.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose, prerequisites, and alternatives are ordered by importance. Enumerating the returned fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-param read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything else needed: usage sequencing, alternatives, ownership scoping, and a summary of returned entity content.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents draftId. The description only restates that retrieval is keyed by draftId, adding no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch authoring draft details by draftId) and enumerates the exact content retrieved: layer AST, slot contracts, theme bindings, validation logs. This clearly separates it from list_template_drafts, update_template_draft, and publish_template_draft.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to call it before update_template_draft or publish_template_draft to inspect structure and check validation status, and names list_template_drafts as the discovery alternative. When-to-use and alternatives are both stated.

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