MCP Prompt Manager

by Tae4an

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

categorize-prompt

Assign a category to a prompt file to organize and filter prompts in the MCP Prompt Manager.

Instructions

Set category for a prompt

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filename": "<filename>",
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "categorize-prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	Yes	Category name for the prompt
`filename`	Yes	The filename of the prompt to categorize

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Set category for a prompt' with no mention of overwrite behavior, validation, side effects, or if it is a safe operation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is one short sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It could be slightly expanded to include context while remaining efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values or constraints, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the tool's purpose, thus meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('set category') and the resource ('prompt'). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tag-prompt', leaving ambiguity about the distinction between category and tag.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'tag-prompt'). There is no context on prerequisites or suitable scenarios.

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