prompt_createSaves an AI prompt for an organization so support teams can reuse instructions. Provide organization ID, prompt name, and prompt text to create it.
Create a saved AI prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the prompt. | |
| text | Yes | The prompt text (instructions for the AI). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain persistence semantics, whether duplicate names are allowed, or whether the prompt is immediately usable.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient and readable, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than deliberate compactness.
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 3-required-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the mutation profile, the definition is minimally viable. Missing are the creation outcome (no output schema exists, so return behavior could have been mentioned) and any note on how the created prompt relates to prompt_list/prompt_get.
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 description coverage is 100%, with name, text, and organizationId all documented in the schema (including a pointer to organization_list). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 (create) and resource (saved AI prompt), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from prompt_update or ai_prompt, but the name-to-action mapping is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus prompt_update (for modifying existing prompts) or ai_prompt (for generating content). No prerequisites or context are given; the agent must infer call conditions entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.