gv_list_promptsLists every prompt in the canonical prompt library with id, category, and title.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gv_list_prompts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter to one category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description usefully discloses the shape of the returned list (id, category, title), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or size limits for what could be a large library.
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?
A single economical sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and it pays for itself by naming the returned fields. Slightly more could be said about the optional filter at no real cost.
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?
For a simple read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, a fully documented single parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields an agent needs. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left unaddressed.
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?
Only one optional parameter (category) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about it and its phrase 'every prompt' arguably undersells the filter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb (Lists) plus resource (every prompt in the canonical prompt library) and even the returned fields (id, category, title). It doesn't explicitly contrast with the singular sibling gv_get_prompt, but 'every prompt' implies bulk enumeration versus single retrieval.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'Lists every prompt' suggests bulk enumeration, so an agent can infer gv_get_prompt is for a single prompt. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention that the optional category filter narrows results.
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.