Skip to main content
Glama
PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O

prompteye-mcp

Official
by PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List the categories the project files prompts under

list_categories
Read-only

Every category of the project, two levels deep: a subcategory carries the id of its top-level category in parentId, which is null on a top-level one, and source says whether PromptEye proposed it (ai) or it was written by hand (manual).

Instructions

Every category of the project, two levels deep: a subcategory carries the id of its top-level category in parentId, which is null on a top-level one, and source says whether PromptEye proposed it (ai) or it was written by hand (manual).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesThe project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.28
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "projectId"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.22
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "parentId": {
+            "description": "The category this one sits under. null = top-level.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "source": {
+            "description": "ai = proposed by PromptEye, manual = written by hand.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "parentId",
+          "source"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the two-level depth cap, the meaning of parentId (null on top-level, parent id on subcategories), and the enumerated source semantics (`ai` vs `manual`) — real behavioral detail not available in structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('every category of the project, two levels deep') before the field semantics. No filler; only mild cost is that it is a long compound sentence rather than split into two.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it usefully explains the one non-obvious field relationship (parentId nesting) plus the source enum. What remains missing is guidance on how this list is consumed relative to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including why it is required. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource — every category of the project, two levels deep — which combined with the title makes the listing operation unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling mutator create_category, so it lands just below the top tier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to inspect the project's category taxonomy, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over create_category or how it relates to list_prompts. Nothing misleading, but nothing explicit either.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools