Retrieve the configuration definition for a device or feature template by specifying its template ID and type. Use it to inspect template settings before review or changes.
Get the definition/configuration of a device or feature template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | Template ID | |
| template_type | Yes | Type of template |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state permissions, whether sensitive configuration data is returned, error behavior for missing IDs, or anything about the response 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves little room for differentiating 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 two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could do more to describe return content or operational context.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the template can be device or feature, adding little beyond the enum, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (definition/configuration of a device or feature template), and the template_type enum reinforces the device-vs-feature distinction. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools or related get tools.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_device_templates, list_feature_templates, or get_feature_profile. The required template_id and template_type imply lookup by ID and type, but no usage context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.