Skip to main content
Glama

agent4.io

by io.agent4

improve_prompt

Rewrite a field's text to work better as an AI system prompt; returns the improved text.

field ∈ persona | task | greeting | storyline_task | storyline_opening
        | storyline_ai_trigger | storyline_ai_criteria
        | skill_description | skill_instructions | kb_description | kb_instructions
— determines the rewrite target (a Task should read like commands, a KB description says
"what's inside / when it's relevant", a skill description says "when to use" in one line, …).
current = the current text (empty = draft from scratch); hint = the direction you want this
time (empty = general polish); context = on-site context (which KB is being edited, values of
sibling fields) — the more specific, the better the fit.
Returns only the improved text, no explanation, no wrapper — the caller places it next to the
original for a human to accept or reject.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNo
fieldYes
contextNo
currentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return format: 'Returns only the improved text, no explanation, no wrapper,' and mentions that the caller places it next to the original for human approval. It also describes edge behavior (empty current = draft from scratch). This is transparent and actionable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized but every sentence earns its place. The line-separated list of field values is structured and readable, though slightly dense. It avoids fluff and stays focused on essential operational details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter roles, expected output, and usage context. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains 'field' with the full enumerated list and semantics, describes 'current' as existing text, 'hint' as direction, and 'context' as on-site context with a note on specificity. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Rewrite a field's text to work better as an AI system prompt; returns the improved text.' It specifies the resource (a field's text) and distinguishes from siblings like diagnose_prompt by focusing on rewriting rather than analyzing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: for improving any of the listed field types. It explains the meaning of each field category and advises providing context for better results. It also clarifies optional parameters (hint, current, context) and what they do, giving clear direction for effective use.

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

All agent4.io toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.

Completeness2/5

The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.

Resources