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

prompteye-mcp

Official

Create, rename, describe or reorder a prompt group

upsert_prompt_group

Create a new prompt group or rename, describe, or reorder an existing one in the active project while preserving its prompt history.

Instructions

Creates a prompt group in the active project or, given a groupId, changes the name, description or order of an existing one. Only the fields sent are changed, and the prompts of a group keep their history when it is renamed or moved.

Without groupId a new, empty group is created: name is required, and the group goes after the existing ones unless order says otherwise. Prompts join a group through update_prompt (groupId) or through a matching groupName in add_prompts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of the group. Required when creating one.
orderNoWhere the group sits in the project's ordering, lowest first.
groupIdNoId of the group to change, as list_prompt_groups reports it. Left out, a new group is created.
descriptionNoWhat the group is for. Null clears it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameYes
orderYesWhere the group sits in the project's own ordering, lowest first.
descriptionNoWhat the group is for. null = nobody described it.
promptCountYesPrompts in the group, paused ones included.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.22

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: partial update semantics ('only the fields sent are changed'), non-destructive history behavior on rename/move, and the default placement of new groups. It stops short of covering permissions or error conditions, and the annotation already carries the safety profile.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight paragraphs, both front-loaded: the create/update split leads, then creation defaults and the membership path. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers creation defaults, update semantics, and how prompts join groups. It omits edge cases such as conflicting groupName matching, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning — name required only when creating, and the ordering default (after existing groups unless order says otherwise) that the schema alone does not convey.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb set (creates/changes) and resource (prompt group), with the create-vs-update switch keyed explicitly on groupId. It also names the related siblings (update_prompt, add_prompts) so the agent can distinguish this upsert from the tools that manage prompt membership.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly states the two usage modes: no groupId creates a new empty group, groupId updates an existing one, and it routes prompt-to-group assignment to update_prompt/add_prompts. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g. pointing to delete_prompt_group for removal), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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