List only the user's custom-uploaded Word templates. Use this when the user asks about their own templates ('show me my templates', 'do I have a letterhead?'). Custom templates are referenced by UUID, not name, when calling convert_document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeDetails | No | Include template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "count": {
- "description": "Number of custom templates returned",
- "type": "integer"
- },
- "templates": {
- "description": "User's custom templates",
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "category": {
- "description": "Category label (built-in templates only)",
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "description": {
- "description": "Short description of the template's intended use",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "id": {
- "description": "Template ID — pass this as templateName to convert_document",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "description": "Human-readable template name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "type": {
- "description": "Source of the template",
- "enum": [
- "built-in",
- "custom"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "id",
- "name",
- "type"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "templates"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable cross-tool context that custom templates are referenced by UUID, not name, when calling convert_document. This is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations that helps the agent understand the returned data's usage. No contradictions found.
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?
Two tightly written sentences deliver the core purpose, usage guidance, and a key cross-tool fact. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant information.
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 with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: scope, usage trigger, and how the results relate to convert_document. The UUID reference adds completeness beyond a minimal description.
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?
The only parameter, includeDetails, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description itself does not add extra parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('only the user's custom-uploaded Word templates'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_builtin_templates and list_all_templates. The scope ('only') and usage examples make the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use this when the user asks about their own templates') with concrete examples. It does not name alternative tools directly, but the sibling names and the word 'only' imply the exclusion of built-in or all templates, making the guidance clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: credit balance vs cost estimation, template listing scoped to all/built-in/custom, and conversion vs validation. The three list tools are explicitly named by scope, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, convert_, estimate_, get_, list_, recommend_, show_, validate_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a document conversion service. Each tool addresses a necessary step in the workflow (template selection, validation, cost estimation, conversion, credit monitoring) without redundancy.
The core lifecycle (pre-flight validation, cost estimation, conversion, balance checking, template discovery) is fully covered. Minor gaps exist—no template upload or settings update—but these are likely handled outside the MCP server, so the surface is complete for its intended agent workflows.