A reviewer objects to a server shipping its own prompt templates, arguing that prompts are user-controlled and therefore ought to be written by the user. How should that objection be answered?

The principle — Control and authorship are different questions, and a single adjective can only answer one of them.

Why the key is correct — Prompts are designed to be user-controlled, meaning they are exposed from servers to clients with the intention of the user being able to explicitly select them for use — and then the documentation removes the ambiguity in the next breath: this refers to who decides when the prompt is used, not who authors its content. Prompt content is defined by the server. That is what makes the primitive useful. A server author knows the domain, so shipping a good template for a recurring task is exactly the value on offer.

Why the others are wrong — Empty templates would strip the primitive of its purpose. Client rewriting is not part of the model. And templates are published to be seen, not hidden.

Remember this — The server writes it; the user chooses when it runs.

Sources — MCP first-party documentation.