Retrieves the complete list of prompts from the MCP Prompt Manager to let you browse and select a prompt for use.
List all available prompts
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list-prompts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely states 'list all available prompts' without detailing pagination, sorting, field inclusion, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant unknowns for an agent.
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 with no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by adding context (e.g., 'returns all prompts') but remains efficient.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description minimally defines purpose. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list of prompt names vs. full objects), which is a gap for completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no burden to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies as no additional info is needed.
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 'List all available prompts' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('prompts'), clearly stating the scope as 'all available'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'list-favorites' (which lists only favorited prompts) and 'search-prompts' (which requires filters).
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving all prompts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'list-favorites' or 'search-prompts'). No exclusions or when-not-to-use contexts are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.