Returns all available MDMA_AUTHOR prompt variants with their id, label, and description. Pass the id to get-prompt as variantId to retrieve the model-optimised prompt.
Returns all available MDMA_AUTHOR prompt variants with their id, label, and description. Pass the id to get-prompt as variantId to retrieve the model-optimised prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read-only listing and discloses the return shape, but says nothing about authentication, result size, or whether ordering is guaranteed. Adequate but thin for a listing operation.
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 waste. The purpose and return content come first, and the follow-up call to get-prompt is placed after, which is the right ordering.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (id, label, description) is genuinely valuable. Combined with the explicit handoff to get-prompt, an agent has what it needs; only pagination/edge-case behavior is 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gap.
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 (Returns) and a well-scoped resource (MDMA_AUTHOR prompt variants) and enumerates the returned fields (id, label, description). It is distinguishable from siblings like list-docs and list-packages by resource, though it does not explicitly name what it is not.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: pass the returned id to get-prompt as variantId. That gives clear context for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming exclusions or when not to use it versus related listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.