Search the whole ecommerce prompt library by keyword (matches prompt title, summary, body, and collection). Returns matching prompts with their collection and source URL. Use to find prompts for a specific store type or marketing job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 15, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Keywords, e.g. "abandoned cart email" or "product description for candles". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must describe behavior. It states returns fields but does not mention that the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers search scope, return fields, and use case. Lacks pagination details beyond limit param, but adequate for a simple search tool with no output schema.
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% with both parameters described. Description adds minimal extra value (keyword example) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it searches the whole prompt library by keyword, matching multiple fields. It also mentions return fields (collection, source URL). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_collection_prompts.
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?
Suggests use case 'find prompts for a specific store type or marketing job' but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternatives (e.g., get_collection_prompts for known collections).
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving prompts by collection, by ID, listing collections, and searching across prompts. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_collection_prompts, get_prompt, list_collections, search_prompts), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for browsing and retrieving prompts from a library. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or excess.
The tool surface covers all essential read operations: listing collections, retrieving individual prompts, getting all prompts in a collection, and searching. For a read-only prompt library, no obvious gaps exist.