Retrieve a message template by ID to view its text, components, variables, and approval status, so you can verify content before use.
Mostra um modelo: texto, componentes, variáveis e status de aprovação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | ID retornado pelo CRM (UUID ou identificador numérico como texto). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the response payload (text, components, variables, approval status), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown or deleted template.
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 no filler, and the enumeration of returned fields is information-dense rather than padding. Nothing could be cut without losing content, though the sentence could be split to separate purpose from return payload.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back but omits the failure mode (not-found or unapproved template) and how the ID is obtained beyond the schema's note. Adequate to call correctly, but not fully self-sufficient.
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%, including the format constraint and the note that the ID comes from the CRM as a UUID or numeric string, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about template_id (e.g. that it must be an approved/known template), leaving the schema to carry the parameter entirely.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mostra um modelo') and enumerates exactly what the caller retrieves: text, components, variables and approval status. It is clearly a single-template fetch, distinct from message_templates_list by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail-lookup for a known template_id while message_templates_list enumerates templates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, no prerequisite for obtaining the template_id, and no mention of the list sibling as the discovery alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.