Search and paginate through available PostGrid templates to locate and reuse existing mail or check designs.
List templates with optional search and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Records to skip (default: 0) | |
| limit | No | Max records (default: 10, max: 100) | |
| search | No | Search filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation: 'List templates with optional search and pagination.' It doesn't disclose response contents, ordering, rate limits, or any side effects. The pagination mention is a small behavioral credit, but overall the disclosure is minimal.
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?
One concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than deliberate completeness. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple with 0 required parameters and full schema coverage, but it has no output schema, no annotations, and sits among 29 siblings including several other list tools. The description gives an agent no basis for choosing this tool over postgrid_list_contacts or postgrid_list_letters, and doesn't describe what a response looks like, so it is incomplete in context.
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 description coverage is 100% — skip, limit, and search each have descriptions in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal context by flagging search and pagination as the tool's optional behaviors, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List templates' with optional search and pagination. It clearly conveys the core operation, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (postgrid_list_contacts, postgrid_list_letters, postgrid_list_cheques), relying on the resource name in the tool title to disambiguate.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over postgrid_get_template for retrieving a single template, or over other postgrid_list_* siblings, and there are no explicit exclusions or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.