Retrieve a specific template by its ID to generate images, videos, or PDFs or manage existing templates.
Retrieve a specific template by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | The template ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no error behavior for missing IDs, no note about what a template contains. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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 short sentence with the verb and key front-loaded, no waste. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter read, though it is arguably too terse to carry any useful extra context.
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 read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, this is essentially complete: the agent knows what it does, what it takes, and that it is safe. No output schema exists, so return-value detail is the only real gap.
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 there is only one parameter ('template_id'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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 (retrieve) and resource (template) with the lookup key (ID). Clear enough to distinguish from write siblings like create_template or update_template, but offers no differentiation from closely related readers such as get_template_layers, get_template_pages, or list_templates.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_templates (to find an ID) or the layer/page readers. No prerequisites or prerequisites context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.