list_templatesRetrieve stored email templates with pagination using limit and offset so you can browse or select templates for transactional messages.
List stored email templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page (default 20, at most 1000). | |
| offset | No | Items to skip; the next page starts at offset + count. |
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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no ordering, no scope of what 'stored' means (all templates? account-wide?), and no hint about whether results are paginated beyond what the schema already states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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 simple paginated list with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps around scope and ordering that an agent might want, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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%, with both limit and offset fully documented including defaults and maximums. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 ('List stored email templates'), so the agent can tell it retrieves a collection rather than a single template. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_template or list_emails, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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 indication of when to use this versus get_template (single retrieval) or how it relates to create/update/delete. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.