Fetch one prompt by id: the full copy-paste prompt plus its guardrails and a why-it-works note. Requires that the prompt is within your license scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Prompt id, e.g. pros-01 (from search_prompts results). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output and a key prerequisite (license scope). It could be improved by mentioning error handling (e.g., if ID not found) but is sufficient for a read-only fetch 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details, followed by a requirement. Every word contributes value; no wasted text.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers the returned data and a usage constraint. It is largely complete for a single-parameter tool, though could specify behavior on missing or out-of-scope IDs.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter in the schema itself. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by id'. Per the rubric, high schema coverage leads to a baseline of 3, and the description does not significantly augment it.
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 ('fetch one prompt by id') and the resource ('prompt'), along with the specific contents returned ('full copy-paste prompt plus its guardrails and a why-it-works note'). It is distinct from sibling tools list_verticals and search_prompts.
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 usage after searching prompts, and explicitly states a precondition ('Requires that the prompt is within your license scope'). However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools or provide alternative conditions.
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 distinct purpose: fetching a specific prompt, listing verticals, and searching. No overlapping functionality.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_prompt, list_verticals, search_prompts.
3 tools is well-scoped for a prompt library, covering the essential operations of listing, searching, and retrieving.
Covers key operations for a read-only library. Missing a tool to list prompts within a vertical, but search_prompts with license scoping partially addresses this.
