Import a prompt template from a URL (GitHub Gist, raw file, etc.).
v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature.
Supports:
GitHub Gist URLs
Raw GitHub file URLs
Any HTTPS URL pointing to JSON/YAML template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to import template from | |
| validate | No | Whether to validate template content (default: True) | |
| user_uuid | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose side effects such as whether the import creates a new template, overwrites existing ones, or requires authentication. The 'Unified Prompt Templates feature' note adds no behavioral detail.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a brief list of supported URL types. The version note 'v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature' is minor extra context but not strictly necessary.
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 an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks information on the import behavior (e.g., persistence, overwrite policy) and the 'user_uuid' parameter is ambiguous. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds detail about acceptable URL formats for the 'url' parameter, but 'validate' and 'user_uuid' remain unexplained in both schema and description. The added URL context prevents a score below 3.
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 the specific verb 'Import' with a resource 'prompt template' and source 'URL', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_prompt_template and list_prompt_templates. The supported URL types add specificity.
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 provides clear context on acceptable input types (GitHub Gist, raw file, HTTPS JSON/YAML), which informs when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, leaving some inference to the agent.
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 have clear, distinct purposes: the three consult_agent_* tools are differentiated by agent specialty (CS, X, Z), and the prompt template tools each serve a unique operation. Minor overlap exists between export_prompt_template and get_prompt_template, and between register_custom_template and import_template_from_url, but descriptions clarify the differences.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (export_, get_, import_, list_, register_, run_, consult_, coordination_handoff_create/read). A minor deviation is coordination_team_status, which is noun_noun, but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
With 13 tools, the set is well-scoped for a server that combines three-agent consultation, an orchestration command, a coordination subsystem, and prompt template management. Each tool earns its place, though three coordination tools are currently disabled, which slightly reduces their practical value.
The core validation workflow is complete: individual agent consultations plus run_full_trinity cover the full X→Z→CS sequence. The prompt template subsystem lacks update and delete operations, which is a minor gap, but the main purpose of the server is well served. The coordination tools are present but disabled, limiting that aspect of the surface.
