Browse all AI prompts stored in your Notion database, showing id, title, and type by default. Enable show_all_fields to include tags and URLs.
List all prompts in the database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show_all_fields | No | If true, shows all fields including tags and url. Default is false, showing only id, title, and type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose whether the result is paginated, whether soft-deleted or archived prompts are included, or whether the output is ordered. It is minimally transparent but lacks meaningful behavioral context.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools that offer filtered alternatives. The description does not clarify the return shape, mention pagination or limits, or guide the agent toward the correct sibling for narrower queries. Given the available context, this is incomplete for reliable agent selection and invocation.
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%, with the parameter show_all_fields already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, formatting, or interaction, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 prompts in the database' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (prompts), and the word 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools that filter by tag, type, or title. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them, so it lacks the sharp differentiation of the highest tier.
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 given on when to use this tool versus search_prompts_by_title, get_prompts_by_tag, get_prompts_by_type, or list_prompt_books. The description implies a general 'list everything' use case, but it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.