Retrieve metadata for all available templates, optionally filtering by paper type or a custom template library directory.
Return metadata for every template in the library (seed + user-added).
Optionally filtered by paper_type ("conference", "journal", "survey").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_type | No | ||
| user_library_dir | No | /root/.paperpilot/templates |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description uses 'Return metadata,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no files are modified or that the operation has no side effects. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and only partially satisfies it.
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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant wording. The main purpose and the optional filter are stated upfront in a compact and readable way.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple listing operation, but it does not clarify the role of user_library_dir or mention any relationship to sibling template-management tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter gaps remain.
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?
Only paper_type is semantically explained in the description. The user_library_dir parameter appears in the schema with a default and path format, but its meaning and relationship to the operation are not described at all, leaving half of the parameters under-documented.
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 clearly states the tool returns metadata for all templates in the library, including seed and user-added templates, and mentions the optional paper_type filter. This makes the primary purpose obvious and distinct from file-level operations like get_template_files.
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 indicates optional filtering by paper_type but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_template_files or add_template_to_library. Some usage is implied, but no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.