Retrieves available documentation templates with IDs, names, and summaries, optionally filtered by category or pack, so you can choose the right structure for a docs task.
List all available documentation templates from The Good Docs Project with IDs, names, and summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category/pack filter (e.g., 'misc', 'core') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that this is a plain read of all templates and what fields come back. It says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or behavior when no templates match, which matters for a full-list operation.
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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause (source project, returned fields) earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns and where the data comes from. The only gap is the unfiltered-listing behavior and the optional category filter.
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?
Only one optional parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'category/pack' filter with examples. The description completely omits the filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.
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') and resource ('documentation templates from The Good Docs Project') and names the fields returned (IDs, names, summaries). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_templates and get_template via the 'all available' scope, but never names those siblings explicitly.
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 'all available' implies a full enumeration as opposed to a targeted lookup, which weakly routes the agent away from search_templates/get_template, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.