get_templateRetrieves a single email template by ID, returning its subject, HTML, and plain-text content for reuse or review.
Get one template with its subject, HTML and text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The template ID (tmpl_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful value by disclosing which fields come back (subject, HTML, text) since there is no output schema, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or about field nullability.
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 short sentence with the returned fields front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly and know roughly what comes back. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified, a minor gap without an output schema.
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 single parameter already documents the 'tmpl_…' format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one template') and names the fields returned (subject, HTML, text), which distinguishes it from list_templates and get_email by scope and content. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
'Get one' implies retrieval of a single known template, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_templates, but the description never states when to use it versus that sibling or how to obtain the required id. Usage is inferred rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.