Retrieve paginated template lists, filtering by category or searching by name to get IDs, names, statuses, and versions.
分页查询模板列表。可按分类筛选或按名称搜索。返回每个模板的 ID、名称、状态、版本等信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | 按样品名称搜索 | |
| current | No | 页码（默认 1） | |
| pageSize | No | 每页条数（默认 20） | |
| categoryId | No | 按分类 ID 筛选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states this is a query (read) operation and lists return fields (ID, name, status, version). However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, side-effect absence, or any operational limitations. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but lacks depth, so 3.
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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by filter options and return fields. Every sentence adds value, achieving 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 paginated listing tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, filters, and return fields. It lacks guidance on ordering and differentiation from search_templates, but the core usage is clear. Given the moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete, hence 4.
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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description text adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it re-states '按分类筛选' and '按名称搜索' which are equivalent to categoryId and name descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3.
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 clear verb-resource pair: '分页查询模板列表' (paged query template list). It specifies filtering/searching and return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'search_templates', despite overlapping capabilities (search by name). This is a minor gap, so 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?
The description implies usage (for listing templates with pagination and optional filters) but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over 'search_templates' or 'get_template_detail'. Usage is inferred from context, not stated, so 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.