MCP Prompt Manager

by Tae4an

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

update-prompt

Update an existing prompt by specifying its filename and providing new content.

Instructions

Update an existing 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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update-prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	The new content for the prompt
`filename`	Yes	The filename of the prompt to update

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not specify if it's a full replacement, any side effects, or permission requirements. 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 a single sentence that is concise but lacks useful context. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place fully as it adds little beyond the tool name.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of the update or provide any additional context needed for correct 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% for both parameters (filename and content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'prompt', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-prompt and delete-prompt. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated beyond what the schema provides.

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. For example, it does not mention that this tool modifies an existing prompt, while create-prompt is for new prompts and delete-prompt for removal.

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