List MCP Server Prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the fact that it lists prompts, which is essentially the same as the annotation set. No extra details about output format, pagination, or potential caveats are provided, but given the simple read-only nature, this is acceptable.

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, short sentence that is directly relevant and contains no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('prompts'), making it easily scannable. Every word earns 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?

The tool is very simple: one required parameter, no output schema, and a clear action. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does, and the parameter is fully described in the schema. While it does not detail the return structure, the phrase 'list the prompts' strongly implies a list of prompt definitions. Given the low complexity and good schema support, the description is nearly complete, but lacks any mention of output shape or potential edge cases, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (server_id) with a description ('MCP server id'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema provides all necessary parameter meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and explicitly identifies the resource: 'prompts exposed by an MCP server.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_list_mcp_server_tools and lyzr_list_mcp_server_resources, which target different resource types. The purpose is immediately clear and 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?

The description implies its usage (call when you need to see prompts for an MCP server) but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like list_mcp_server_tools and list_mcp_server_resources are present, but the description does not guide the agent to choose between them. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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