List all available prompts.
Returns JSON with prompt metadata including name, description, and optional arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format (JSON with prompt metadata including name, description, and optional arguments), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature or any additional behavioral constraints beyond the list action.
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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only relevant additional information about the return format. Both sentences earn their place without redundancy.
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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what the response contains. No further details about authentication or side effects are necessary given the read-only nature implied by 'List'.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to cover. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to add parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all available prompts', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_prompt which retrieves a single prompt. The scope 'all' adds clarity and differentiates this tool's purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_prompt or any other sibling tool, nor does it suggest a discovery workflow or any exclusions.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but get_user_feed_items and get_user_requests both surface user activity, and get_request_feed_items vs get_request_detail could be confused. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap creates minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (build_, create_, get_, list_, search_, update_). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools are well-scoped for the domain, covering read, search, write, and feed operations without bloat. The prompts-related tools are ancillary but not excessive.
Core workflows are covered: authority lookup, request search/detail, user requests, creation, and state updates. Missing user detail or direct authority request list can be worked around with existing search and feed tools.