list_promptsLists all available prompts with their names, descriptions, and optional arguments, so agents can discover supported design-pattern guidance.
List all available prompts.
Returns JSON with prompt metadata including name, description, and optional arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only behavioral sentence describes the return payload, which duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding new context such as pagination, ordering, or whether built-in prompts are included.
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?
Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, and no filler or hedging. The second sentence ('Returns JSON with prompt metadata...') is slightly redundant given the output schema, so it does not fully earn 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description gives everything an agent needs to decide to call it. Ordering, filtering, and the list-vs-get boundary are the only real omissions, and all are minor here.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory and requires no narration.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all available prompts'), which is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from the 'get_prompt' sibling by scoping to 'all', but never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'all available prompts' signals the enumeration case versus fetching a single prompt. There is no explicit 'use this when / use get_prompt instead when' guidance, and prerequisites or scoping (which prompts are exposed) are unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.