Fetch all renders generated from a specific template using its template ID, with optional page and limit pagination.
List all renders created from a specific template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention pagination behavior despite having page/limit parameters, nor ordering, defaults, or result shape.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though it errs toward under-specification.
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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits pagination behavior and whether results are ordered or bounded, which matters for a tool exposing page/limit.
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%, so page, limit, and template_id are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the template scoping that template_id already conveys, adding no syntax, format, or default-value detail. 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 (List), resource (renders), and scope (created from a specific template), which is more precise than the sibling list_renders. However, it never names the sibling it contrasts with, so the agent must infer the distinction from the scope phrase alone.
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 phrase 'from a specific template' implies this is the tool to use when renders must be scoped to one template, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of list_renders as the unscoped alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.