Lists approved prompts, returning an empty catalog when none are available.
List approved prompts; an unpopulated catalog is empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that an empty result is a valid state rather than an error — but says nothing about pagination behavior, default/max page size, or filtering semantics.
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 compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the caveat second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all parameters are optional. But for a paginated list tool the missing pieces — how to advance with cursor, what limit defaults to, whether results can be filtered by locale, and how it differs from academy_prompt — leave real gaps for an agent that must call it correctly.
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 only 50%: limit and cursor carry no schema descriptions, and the description adds zero meaning for either. Cursor-based pagination is exactly the concept an agent needs explained, and the description is silent on it while consuming its one clause on the empty-case note.
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?
"List approved prompts" gives a specific verb (list) and a scoped resource (approved prompts), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from the singular sibling academy_prompt or from academy_search, which an agent must choose among in a 28-tool namespace.
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 only guidance is "an unpopulated catalog is empty," which addresses result interpretation, not tool selection. There is no statement of when to call this versus academy_prompt (single fetch) or academy_search, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or catalog population.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.