placetel_get_promptRetrieves a specific prompt by ID from the Placetel Web API, returning human-readable markdown or machine-readable JSON.
Retrieve a prompt. (GET /prompts/{id}) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description's only behavioral content ("Read-only") merely restates that. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing id, permissions, or the shape/nature of the returned prompt, so it adds no value beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two short fragments, front-loaded with the action. Efficient, though the trailing "Read-only" duplicates the annotations rather than earning its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a prompt object contains (name, text, type, timestamps) and what markdown vs json returns. It provides none of that, leaving the return value entirely opaque for a retrieval tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including a documented enum for response_format, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it (e.g., whether id is a numeric prompt id or what markdown vs json actually changes), which is the baseline case for full coverage.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a prompt") and pins it to the upstream endpoint GET /prompts/{id}, so an agent knows this fetches a single prompt by identifier. It does not explicitly contrast with placetel_list_prompts or placetel_update_prompt, but the singular resource plus path is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus placetel_list_prompts (discovery) or the other prompt CRUD siblings. The agent must infer that an id is needed and that listing comes first; nothing in the text says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.