list_templatesRetrieve video templates stored under a user account and stage to inspect available options for editing or rendering workflows.
Retrieve a list of templates stored against a users account and stage.
Base URL: https://api.shotstack.io/edit/{version} Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Shotstack account; selects private credentials and stage/v1 environment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read operation' merely restates readOnlyHint; its only added context is the base URL and account/stage scoping. No pagination or rate-limit behavior is disclosed, so this is minimal added value against an already-complete annotation set.
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 short and front-loads the purpose before the URL and read flag. The embedded HTML anchor and version placeholder are slightly noisy marketing text, but there is no padding or redundancy beyond that.
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-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present (what is listed, scoping, read-only nature). However, it never indicates pagination, ordering, or result shape, which are the questions an agent actually has for a list endpoint.
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?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the 'account' selector. The description adds nothing about how the account parameter changes credentials or environment beyond what the schema states, so 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a list of templates') and adds scoping (a user's account and stage), so an agent can distinguish it from get_template or create_template. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives, but the list-vs-get distinction is clear from the verb.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of the natural alternatives (get_template for a single template, create/update/delete_template for mutations). The account/stage scope hints at usage but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.