Retrieve a prompt by name to access its complete metadata, including version, score history, and template content, for informed prompt management.
Get a specific prompt by name with full metadata including version, score history, and template content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Prompt name to retrieve | |
| response_format | No | Response format: markdown for human reading, json for machine processing | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what metadata is returned (version, score history, template content), going beyond the structured annotations.
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 that front-loads the action and object, then specifies the metadata scope. Every word contributes value; no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple get-by-name read operation with an optional response format. The description covers the core return content, which partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. Minor omissions like exact-name matching or not-found behavior are not critical for this tool's simplicity and are outweighed by annotation-covered safety.
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%, so both name and response_format are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the name parameter is the prompt identifier, but does not add material detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'specific prompt by name', and the key content returned: 'full metadata including version, score history, and template content'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from toad_list_prompts by emphasizing retrieval of one named prompt rather than enumeration.
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 phrase 'specific prompt by name' gives clear context that this tool is for targeted retrieval when the prompt name is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives like toad_list_prompts or toad_search_documents, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.