List MCP server prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are fetched live, and the failure mode (server not connected) yields an empty prompts array plus a gumloop_auth_url, which tells the agent how to interpret and act on an empty result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the resource noun. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, the failure case, the safety classification), with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does name the return fields (prompts, gumloop_auth_url), which is helpful. However, for a 3-parameter tool with a fully undocumented required parameter, the description remains incomplete on the input side.

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 only 33%; server_id (the required parameter) and team_id have empty descriptions. The description compensates for none of this gap, providing no explanation of what server_id must reference or when to supply account/team_id, so an agent must guess at the required input.

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 (Return) and resource (prompt templates an MCP server exposes), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_mcp_server_tools and list_mcp_server_resources that return different resource types. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the closest alternatives (get_mcp_server_prompt for a single prompt, or list_mcp_server_tools/resources for other entity types). The usage is only implied by the tool name and resource noun.

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