Fetch only a prompt's summary by ID to reduce context; use get_prompt when you need the full content.
Obtém apenas resumo/descrição de um prompt (eficiente para contexto). Use get_prompt para conteúdo completo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do prompt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait — that only the summary/description is returned, not the full prompt — which is the essential fact for an agent. However, it says nothing about truncation, permissions, or exact return shape, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 short sentences: the first states what the tool returns and why it is efficient, the second routes to the alternative. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, return scope, and the sibling alternative. With no output schema, it could say slightly more about the summary contents, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 a single required 'id' parameter whose type and meaning are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource (obtains the summary/description of a prompt) and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_prompt for full content. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?
Names the alternative tool (get_prompt) and the condition that selects it ('eficiente para contexto'), giving clear routing guidance. It doesn't state an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the implicit 'if you need full content', which is why it falls just short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.