Lists email and SMS templates, with filters for channel, category, and active status.
List email and SMS templates. Filter by channel (sms/email), category, or active status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| channel | No | Filter by channel — 'sms' or 'email' | |
| category | No | Filter by category | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 50, max 200) | |
| is_active | No | Filter by active/inactive |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a safe read operation, and the filter fields are disclosed, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or what the response looks like.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the available filters.
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 list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could mention pagination or return format, but the schema already covers pagination inputs.
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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the channel, category, and active-status filters but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 email and SMS templates." This clearly distinguishes it from the get/create/update template siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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?
It gives useful filtering context (channel, category, active status) but does not say when to use this tool versus conduyt_get_template or other template tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.