transloadit_list_templatesList Assembly Templates (owned and/or builtin). Tip: pass include_builtin: "exclusively-latest" to list builtins only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| include_builtin | No | ||
| include_content | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| errors | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| templates | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping (owned/builtin) but omits details like authentication needs, side effects (if any), or any operational caveats. For a list tool, safety may be implied but not explicitly stated.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the tip is valuable without unnecessary verbosity. Every word 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?
With 7 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't mention the full range of capabilities like pagination, sorting, keyword filtering, or include_content. The output schema covers return values, but the input-side guidance is sparse.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the include_builtin parameter and one of its enum values, while the other six parameters (page, sort, order, keywords, page_size, include_content) remain unexplained. This is insufficient compensation.
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 tool lists Assembly Templates and distinguishes owned vs builtin. This is a specific verb and resource, and it stands apart from sibling tools (which focus on assemblies, robots, or help).
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?
It provides a concrete usage tip for listing builtins only via include_builtin, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, though the sibling tools make the purpose distinct enough.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: creation, status retrieval, waiting, linting, and listing robots/templates. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the same transloadit_verb_noun pattern with clear verbs like create, get, lint, list, wait. The naming is perfectly consistent.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a media processing workflow, covering assembly creation, monitoring, validation, and resource exploration without bloat.
The core assembly lifecycle (create, status, wait) is fully covered, and linting adds pre-validation. A notable gap is the lack of a cancel operation or broader assembly listing, but these are non-essential for common workflows.