aspa-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Listar templates

aspa_list_templates

Read-only

Lists approved WhatsApp message templates with names and previews for a conversation, using a conversation index or contact name to find available templates.

Instructions

List approved WhatsApp message templates (name and preview) available for a conversation.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aspa_list_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	No	Index from aspa_list_conversations.
`contact`	No	Contact name (exact or unique case-insensitive part). Used instead of index.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that only approved templates are returned and that output is limited to name and preview, which is useful context, but it does not explain how the conversation context is resolved between index and contact, whether results are paginated, or any API dependency/failure behavior.

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; the resource and return fields come first. It is arguably under-sized rather than wasteful, but nothing in it needs trimming.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of the returned data (name and preview). The only real gap is the missing note on how index/contact select the conversation context, which is partially handled by the schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the index/contact alternative. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("List approved WhatsApp message templates") plus the returned fields (name and preview) and the scope (available for a conversation). An agent can distinguish it from aspa_send_template and aspa_quick_replies by the listing verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before aspa_send_template, but the description never says when to call it versus that sibling, nor whether it must be called before sending. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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