mcp-chat-cards

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Deliver the efficient prompt

create_efficient_prompt_card

Build an editable chat card for a finished prompt, showing character/token counts, copy/send controls, and confirmation before sending.

Instructions

Step 3 of the efficient-prompt flow: hand back the finished prompt in an editable card with a character and token count, a copy button, and a send button gated behind a confirmation box. Write one prompt that is verbose only where verbosity buys a complete first-pass answer: no restated context, no filler, an explicit output shape. Do not act on the prompt here - wait for the user to send it back as a message.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	One line on what the prompt assumes or leaves out, shown under it
`title`	No
`prompt`	Yes	The finished prompt, as plain text
`subtitle`	No
`contextActions`	No	Right-click menu actions the model anticipates being useful. Choosing one sends its prompt to the conversation; use {{selection}} to include the user's selected text.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`card`	Yes
`parts`	Yes	Split state, present on EVERY card result so one completeness check works for all card types. Cards that cannot split always report {current:1,total:1,hasMore:false}; create_markdown_card and create_code_tour_card pack oversized content into parts and can report more. Read hasMore rather than the card title to decide whether content was withheld.
`display`	No	Present only when the host is not mounting this server's MCP Apps template (see MCP_CHAT_CARDS_RENDER): the card ships as a ready-made visualizer widget instead.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0-alpha.1.0.1Oct 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / display

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Present only when the host is not mounting this server's MCP Apps template (see MCP_CHAT_CARDS_RENDER): the card ships as a ready-made visualizer widget instead.",
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "description": "What the caller must do to put the card in front of the user",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "loading_messages": {
+      "description": "show_widget loading_messages",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "shown": {
+      "description": "False: the user cannot see this card until action is taken",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "show_widget title (snake_case)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "widget_code": {
+      "description": "show_widget widget_code, passed unchanged",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "shown",
+    "action",
+    "title",
+    "loading_messages",
+    "widget_code"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.2.0-alphaAug 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the card renders character/token counts, a copy button, and a send button gated behind a confirmation box, and critically that the tool does not itself act on the prompt. Permission, state, or edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens if prompt is blank beyond minLength) is not covered, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the flow position and artifact, then the authoring rule, then the do-not-act constraint. Every sentence contributes, though the first sentence is dense with UI feature enumeration that borders on over-specification.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers flow position, authoring intent, and the non-action constraint. The only meaningful gap is undocumented title/subtitle parameters, which is a minor incompleteness rather than a blocker.

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 coverage is 60% with the main required 'prompt' param described in the schema, and the description adds genuinely useful authoring guidance for it (verbose only where verbosity buys a complete first-pass answer, explicit output shape). However, 'title' and 'subtitle' remain undocumented in both schema and description, and 'contextActions' semantics are largely carried by the schema itself, so this sits at the baseline-3 level.

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?

States a specific verb and output artifact: hand back the finished prompt in an editable card with counts, copy and send controls. It also situates itself as step 3 of the efficient-prompt flow, which helps distinguish it from siblings, though it never names the adjacent prompt-card siblings (create_prompt_gist_card, create_prompt_refine_card) so an agent must infer the routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Step 3 of the efficient-prompt flow' framing plus the explicit prohibition 'Do not act on the prompt here - wait for the user to send it back as a message' gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-act guidance. It does not, however, state when to choose this card over the other prompt-card siblings.

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