Lists all campaign and transactional templates with their IDs, names, types, and default flags so you can reference them when creating campaigns, sending transactional email, or updating templates.
List all templates (campaign layouts and transactional) with ID, name, type and default flag. Use the IDs with create_campaign, send_transactional_email or update_template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the result includes ID, name, type and default flag, effectively documenting the return shape. It omits any mention of result volume or pagination behavior, which matters for a "list all" tool with no parameters to bound the output.
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: what you get first, what to do with it second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the actionable guidance is front-loaded.
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?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-field documentation itself and does so adequately, plus names the consuming tools. Only the lack of any note on output size or ordering keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter semantics.
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 all templates") and enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, type, default flag), which clearly separates it from the singular get_template sibling. It falls short of a 5 because it never explicitly names get_template as the single-item alternative.
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?
Gives concrete downstream routing: use the returned IDs with create_campaign, send_transactional_email or update_template. That tells the agent where this tool fits in the workflow, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use get_template when you already know the ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.