mcp-www

get_remote_prompt

Fetch a prompt from a remote MCP server by providing its URL and prompt name. Pass optional arguments to customize the prompt for your use case.

Instructions

Get a prompt from a remote MCP server. Use browse first to see available prompts, then use this to retrieve one with optional arguments.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "get_remote_prompt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The MCP server URL (e.g., 'https://mcp.example.com')
`prompt`	Yes	The name of the prompt to get
`arguments`	No	Arguments to pass to the prompt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the core retrieval action and the prerequisite browse step, but it does not mention error handling, authentication, network requirements, or return format. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, purpose-first, and contains no redundant information. Every clause earns its place, and it is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simple read operation, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter guidance (optional arguments), and a usage step. However, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the agent must infer the return value and potential errors, which prevents a perfect score.

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% – all three parameters are described in the schema. The description adds only that arguments are optional, which is already implied by the schema (arguments is not in required). It does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get a prompt') and the resource ('remote MCP server'), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like browse by positioning it as the retrieval step after browsing. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use browse first to see available prompts, then use this to retrieve one.' This guides the agent on sequencing and purpose. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it with alternatives like call_remote_tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server