Get MCP server prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read operation' is largely redundant. The one piece of added value is 'return its messages', which discloses the return shape in the absence of an output schema. No auth or rate-limit context is provided.

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 action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence ('Read operation.') is redundant against the annotations, which is the only real waste.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description does too little: it never clarifies the top-level name vs payload.name duplication, the payload/payload_file/body-flag mutual exclusion, or the account credential-selection semantics. It only hints at the return value.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents server_id, name, account, team_id, payload, arguments and payload_file. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all – notably it does not explain the payload vs payload_file vs body-flag exclusivity, which the schema only hints at.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Render one prompt template with arguments and return its messages.' This is distinguishable from the sibling list_mcp_server_prompts, though the description never names that sibling. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 by 'Render one prompt template with arguments' – the agent can infer this is the execution counterpart to listing prompts. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no pointer to watch server_id or account selection.

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