Skip to main content
Glama

Dali by Lulu

by io.github.Lulu-The-Narwhal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

score_prompt

Read-only

Score a prompt for a generation target (0–100) and, if it's weak, return the rewrite brief — in ONE call.

Reads intent with a fast heuristic keyword analyzer, scores the prompt, then: • score ≥ 70 (A/B) → returns the scorecard and tells you to proceed. • score < 70 (C/D/F) → returns the scorecard PLUS a rewrite brief so you can fix it without a second call. Write the enhanced prompt from the brief, then call track_enhancement(original, enhanced, generator).

Returns a ScoreCard (overall, grade A–F, per-dimension breakdown, what's missing, anti-patterns, verdict) plus needs_enhancement, and enhancement_brief when weak.

category (optional): the ad vertical (e.g. "wellness", "beauty") — when set and conversion priors exist, the brief upgrades to a conversion-justified rewrite.

Supported generators: veo3, higgsfield, midjourney, flux, kling, sora, imagen…

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYes
categoryNo
generatorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / category
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it uses a 'fast heuristic keyword analyzer', returns different outputs based on score thresholds, and upgrades the brief when conversion priors exist. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: first line states core action, then details two paths, then describes return values, and finally explains optional parameter. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed by condensing the ScoreCard description.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (scoring, conditional enhancement, optional category), the description covers the main workflow and return types (ScoreCard, enhancement_brief). With no output schema, it provides a good outline of the response. However, it lacks error handling details and doesn't specify what happens if an invalid generator is provided.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: 'prompt' is the text to score, 'generator' is the target (with examples like veo3, midjourney), and 'category' is the ad vertical that upgrades the brief. This compensates completely for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Score a prompt for a generation target (0–100) and, if it's weak, return the rewrite brief — in ONE call.' It differentiates from siblings like 'enhance_prompt' by explaining its unique one-call workflow and conditional return of a rewrite brief. Also mentions optional category parameter for conversion-justified upgrades.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states the one-call advantage over multiple calls and instructs the agent: if score < 70, 'Write the enhanced prompt from the brief, then call track_enhancement'. Also explains when to use the optional 'category' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enhance_prompt' or 'score_creative'.

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

All Dali by Lulu 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.

Resources