Retrieve an approved public prompt by its identifier to reuse vetted prompt content in chat workflows.
Read an approved public prompt by identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| locale | No | MCP transport locale; not a service input field. | de |
| idempotencyKey | No | Transport retry key, forwarded as Idempotency-Key. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | ||
| result | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| messages | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only approved public prompts are readable, but says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits beyond that.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: verb, resource, qualifier, and selection mechanism.
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?
With an output schema and rich annotations already present, this simple read tool does not need much more prose. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could note the approved/public failure mode to be fully complete.
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 67%, with id constraints, a locale enum, and an idempotencyKey description already documented structurally. The description reinforces that the operation is driven by the identifier but adds no meaning about locale or retry-key semantics, so it does not materially improve parameter understanding.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Read an approved public prompt by identifier.' This tells an agent it retrieves a single prompt, which is distinguishable from the likely list-oriented sibling academy_prompts, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.
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?
'By identifier' implies you need a known ID and that this is a lookup rather than a discovery call, but the description never states when to prefer this over academy_prompts or academy_search, nor what to do when the prompt is not approved or public.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.