list_templatesRetrieve saved Substack post templates and their IDs for use with create_draft_from_template.
List your saved post templates, with the ids create_draft_from_template takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publication | No | Which connected publication to act on, matched loosely against its hostname (for example 'example.substack.com' or just 'example'). Defaults to the first connected publication. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the output is the id set consumed by create_draft_from_template, but says nothing about ordering, limits, or empty-result behavior.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the downstream-use clause is the only extra information — nothing wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what the return value contains (ids for create_draft_from_template). For a single-optional-param read tool this is nearly complete; only edge cases like empty template lists are unaddressed.
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 the single publication parameter is fully documented in the schema (hostname matching, default). The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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?
Specific verb (List) + resource (saved post templates) plus the payload it returns (the ids create_draft_from_template takes). An agent can distinguish it from create_template/delete_template and the draft siblings without opening any schema.
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 mention of create_draft_from_template strongly implies the workflow: call this first to obtain template ids. It doesn't state exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is clear for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.