MCP Prompt Manager

by Tae4an

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

tag-prompt

Add tags to a prompt file to organize and categorize your prompts for easier retrieval.

Instructions

Add tags to 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>",
      "tags": "<tags>"
    },
    "name": "tag-prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	Yes	Array of tags to add to the prompt
`filename`	Yes	The filename of the prompt to tag

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add tags' but does not explain whether tags are appended or replaced, what happens if the prompt doesn't exist, or if there are any side effects. This lack of detail is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, but it may be too brief, missing important details that could improve clarity without being verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally acceptable but lacks contextual details such as expected behavior when the prompt is not found or if tags already exist. It adequately covers the basic action but leaves gaps for edge cases and error handling.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The term 'tags' in the description mirrors the schema's 'Array of tags', offering no extra clarity on format or constraints.

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 (add tags) and the resource (a prompt), making the tool's purpose easy to understand. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'favorite-prompt' or 'update-prompt', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the latter which might also modify tags.

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 like 'update-prompt' which could also be used to modify tags. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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