Get full content of a prompt template: system instructions (prompt_text) and auto-reply rules.
Run prompts.list first to find the prompt_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt_id | Yes | ID of the prompt template to fetch | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure about what the payload contains (prompt_text and auto-reply rules), which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the return content front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Every clause earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned content, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, lacking only notes on error behavior for a missing/invalid prompt_id.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both prompt_id and in_workspace are already fully described in the schema. The description only reinforces prompt_id by referring to finding it via prompts.list and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get full content of a prompt template') and enumerates exactly what is returned (system instructions / prompt_text and auto-reply rules). An agent can distinguish it from prompts_list, prompts_update, and prompts_blocks_get without opening a schema.
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?
Gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Run prompts.list first to find the prompt_id.' That is clear operational context, though it names no when-not condition or alternative sibling (e.g., prompts_blocks_get for block content).
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.