List email templates with optional filtering by type, page, and limit. Retrieve template details to manage or review them.
List all email templates with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| limit | No | Templates per page (default: 10) | |
| filter | No | Filter criteria (e.g., {type: {eq: 'magic_link'}}) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'List all' and 'filtering' indicate a read-style operation and scope, but it does not mention pagination behavior, return shape, or side-effect safety beyond what the tool name implies.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and the main optional capability efficiently.
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 list tool, the schema covers all input parameters and the description conveys the essential purpose. However, without annotations or an output schema, and with no mention of pagination results or alternative single-template retrieval, the definition leaves some contextual gaps for an agent.
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 the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'email templates' and 'optional filtering', while the schema already documents page, limit, and filter semantics with an example.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List all email templates'. It clearly distinguishes from single-template operations like baasix_get_template, and 'all' emphasizes the plural scoped behavior.
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 description implies use for fetching template lists and mentions optional filtering, but it does not explicitly direct agents to alternatives such as baasix_get_template for retrieving a single template. The usage context is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.