Retrieve prompts and filter them by tags or a search term to locate relevant prompt templates.
List prompts, optionally filtered by tags (any match) or a search term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Return prompts carrying any of these tags | |
| search | No | Text to look for in the name, description or content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read, and '(any match)' clarifies OR-semantics for tags, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, truncation, or permissions for a tool that could return an unbounded collection.
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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource before the optional qualifiers. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation adequately. The remaining gap is the return shape: it never says what a listed prompt contains or whether the full set is returned at once.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters in near-identical wording ('any of these tags', 'name, description or content'). The description's '(any match)' reinforces the OR semantics but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (prompts), plus the two optional filter modes. It is distinguishable from get_prompt (single fetch) by the verb, though it never names or contrasts any sibling 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: the word 'optionally' signals that calling with no arguments lists everything and filters are additive. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_prompt for a specific prompt, and no mention of result limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.