Get a prompt by name with optional arguments.
Returns the rendered prompt as JSON with a messages array. Arguments should be provided as a dict mapping argument names to values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name of the prompt to get | |
| arguments | No | Optional arguments for the prompt |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Generic wrapper for non-object return types."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, which match the description's 'get' action. The description does not mention side effects, but the annotations cover this. No contradictions.
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, using two short sentences to convey the purpose and parameter format. No fluff or 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?
The description provides enough context for retrieval, including the return format (rendered JSON with messages array). The output schema exists and covers the response, so no further detail is required.
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?
Both parameters are fully described: 'name' as the prompt identifier and 'arguments' as an optional mapping. The schema already covers this, and the description reinforces the meaning with no ambiguity.
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 that the tool retrieves a prompt by name with optional arguments, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_prompts which list available prompts. The verb 'get' and resource 'prompt' are explicit.
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 when a specific prompt is needed, and the sibling list_prompts provides the alternative for listing. Though not explicit, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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.