Create a new prompt entry in the database by specifying its name, type, and detailed content, with optional tags for organization.
Add a new prompt to the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the prompt | |
| tags | No | Optional list of tags for the prompt | |
| type | Yes | Type of the prompt. Use the list_all_types tool to check existing types to use. | |
| detailed_prompt | Yes | The detailed content of the prompt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a mutation ('Add') but does not mention duplicate handling, validation behavior, return values, or any side effects beyond insertion.
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 clear sentence with no filler and is immediately informative. It could be slightly richer, but it earns its place efficiently.
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?
This is a simple create operation with a schema that documents all parameters, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not cover what happens on success, uniqueness constraints, or any preconditions, which leaves some gaps for an agent selecting the 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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, though the schema's note on the type field pointing to list_all_types is a helpful cross-reference.
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 clearly states the verb (Add) and the resource (a new prompt to the database), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_prompt, copy_prompt, and create_prompt_database. The scope is apparent: creating a brand-new prompt, not modifying or duplicating an existing one.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_prompt or copy_prompt. The description implies 'use this to create' but does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.