branchly

list_prompts

Read-only

List prompts for the authenticated application. Optionally filter by type, subtype, or active status. Returns paginated results ordered by active status then last update.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`subtype`	No	'routing_instructions' or 'output_instructions'. Returns all when omitted.
`is_active`	No	Activating a prompt automatically deactivates other prompts of the same type.
`prompt_type`	No	'chat', 'search_answering', 'suggested_questions', or 'chat_evaluation'. Returns all when omitted.
`interface_type`	No	Interface scope of the prompt: 'chat', 'navigator', 'search', or 'api'. Required for 'chat' and 'search_answering' prompt types; omit for 'suggested_questions' and 'chat_evaluation'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are paginated, ordered by active status then last update, and scoped to the authenticated application. It also indicates optional filtering behavior without contradicting the annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences carry all essential guidance: the first states the operation and filter options, the second states pagination and ordering. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema, read-only annotation, and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema, the description adequately covers scope, filtering, pagination, and ordering. It does not explain authentication prerequisites or interface_type subtleties, but those are either implied by 'authenticated application' or detailed in the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description only summarizes filtering by 'type', 'subtype', or 'active status'. This maps to prompt_type, subtype, and is_active, but the generic word 'type' is ambiguous given interface_type also exists. Page, limit, and interface_type are left to the schema, so the description adds modest value but does not fully resolve parameter semantics on its own.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'prompts', scoped to the authenticated application. It further clarifies optional filtering by type, subtype, or active status, making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling list tools such as list_tools and list_data_sources.

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?

The description clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: listing prompts for the authenticated application, with optional filters and paginated output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-focused phrasing makes the intended use obvious.

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

All branchly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or metric, and even the closely related analytics tools (e.g. get_top_languages vs get_top_locales, get_top_interaction_sources vs get_top_clicked_urls) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb prefixes create_, get_, list_, read_, and update_ are used predictably, and there is no mixing of camelCase or other conventions. The main inconsistency is that read_sessions is actually a list operation while list_nodes is the equivalent pattern for nodes, and read_session_detail is the singular read.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this set is well beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and far above the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many of the get_top_* analytics endpoints are individually distinct but could likely be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools to reduce agent selection overhead.

Completeness3/5

The read and analytics side is comprehensive, but the management lifecycle has notable gaps: knowledge nodes support create/read/update but no delete, and data sources/tools lack create/delete operations. Agents can work around some gaps, but content deletion is a clear dead end for a knowledge-base management surface.

Resources

Need Help?