Retrieves the official English prompt and translated description for any of 328 design models to guide code generation.
Retorna o prompt oficial completo em inglês e a descrição traduzida de um dos 328 modelos do acervo para orientar a geração de código.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do prompt (1 a 328) ou título exato do modelo. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns content and specifies the output language/format (English prompt plus translated description), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or how lookup by 'exact title' behaves, though as a simple get operation the risk is low.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simple scope.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, the essential information is present and the schema covers the parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the response format, possible errors, and how this tool differs from get_template or search_vault. The slight ambiguity between 'modelos' and 'prompts' also leaves room for confusion.
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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter: 'ID do prompt (1 a 328) ou título exato do modelo' with 100% coverage. The description adds the collection size of 328 but does not provide meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and clearly identifies the resource: the official full prompt in English and the translated description from one of 328 models. It also states the purpose ('para orientar a geração de código'), making the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_template.
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 is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_vault, list_templates, or get_template. The phrase 'para orientar a geração de código' implies a purpose, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.