Pineprompt

Update Prompt Tool

update-prompt-tool

DestructiveIdempotent

Active prompts are sent daily to third-party AI search engines (for example ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity) on Pineprompt's schedule, which uses plan quota. Overwrites the given fields; previous values are not kept. Update an existing prompt. Every field is optional, so send only the fields to change; a field that is omitted keeps its current value. Pass monitor_id to move the prompt to another monitor in the same project (collected responses move with it), or tags to replace the prompt's full set of tag ids.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prompt_id": "<prompt_id>"
    },
    "name": "update-prompt-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Tag ids that replace the prompt's full tag set. Each tag must belong to the same project as the prompt. Optional; omitted means the tags are left unchanged.
`prompt`	No	The prompt text to run against the monitor's AI platforms (max 2000 characters).
`is_active`	No	Whether the prompt should run on schedule. Pass false for an inactive/paused prompt.
`prompt_id`	Yes	The numeric id of the prompt to update.
`monitor_id`	No	Move the prompt to this monitor. The monitor must belong to the same project as the prompt; collected responses move with the prompt. Optional; omitted means the prompt keeps its current monitor.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it warns that active prompts are sent daily to third-party engines on a schedule that consumes plan quota, states that updates overwrite and previous values are not kept, and notes that moving a prompt carries its collected responses. These corroborate destructiveHint=true and go further by disclosing a cost/consumption side effect and data-migration behavior that annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Information-dense with no filler sentences, but poorly front-loaded: the reader hits quota/billing context and the overwrite warning before learning what the tool actually does. A reorder putting "Update an existing prompt" first would materially improve scanability for tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: partial-update semantics, the destructive overwrite warning, quota cost of active prompts, and same-project constraints for both moves and tags. Nothing essential is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description synthesizes the cross-field contract ("every field is optional, so send only the fields to change; a field that is omitted keeps its current value") and clarifies the same-project constraint and response migration for `monitor_id`. It repeats rather than extends the schema's per-parameter tag-replacement note, so it stops short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description contains a specific verb+resource ("Update an existing prompt") and clarifies partial-update semantics, which distinguishes it from create-prompt-tool and get-prompt-tool. However, that purpose sentence is buried in the middle of the text rather than leading, and it never names the attach/detach tag siblings it competes with for tag manipulation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear guidance on how to use it: "send only the fields to change; a field that is omitted keeps its current value", plus targeted instructions for `monitor_id` and `tags`. It gives no explicit when-not or routing to the alternative attach-tag-to-prompt-tool / detach-tag-from-prompt-tool tools, which is the main missing piece since `tags` replaces the whole set.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pineprompt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?