A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceAutomatically analyzes and optimizes AI prompts by calculating clarity scores, detecting risks, asking clarifying questions, and adding domain-specific requirements to improve AI interaction quality.
1
MIT
pqs-mcp-server
Server Details
PQS scores any prompt before the model runs. 8 dimensions. 5 frameworks. Pre-flight, not post-hoc.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- OnChainAIIntel/pqs-mcp-server
- GitHub Stars
- 2
- Server Listing
- PQS - Prompt Quality Score
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one scores a prompt's quality, the other optimizes it. The descriptions clearly specify when to use each, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern (score_prompt, optimize_prompt), making the naming predictable and consistent across the set.
Tool Count4/5
With only 2 tools, the set is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is well-scoped for the narrow domain of prompt scoring and optimization. Each tool serves a clear and complementary purpose.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the complete workflow: score a prompt to identify weaknesses, then optimize it to improve the score. There are no obvious missing operations or dead ends in this domain.
Available Tools
2 toolsoptimize_promptAInspect
Rewrite a prompt to score higher on the PQS rubric, AND show before/after output comparisons so the user can see the impact. Returns the optimized prompt, the original PQS score, the optimized PQS score, and side-by-side sample outputs from a frontier model using both versions.
USE WHEN:
The user got a low score from score_prompt and asks how to improve.
The user explicitly asks to "improve" / "rewrite" / "fix" / "optimize" a prompt they pasted.
The user is dissatisfied with output quality from a previous prompt and asks how to get better results.
score_prompt returned a suggestion to invoke this tool.
DO NOT USE WHEN:
The user just asked for a score (use score_prompt only — don't double up).
The user wants you to write a new prompt from scratch (write it directly).
REQUIRES: A PQS API key from a Pro subscription ($19.99/month, 1,000 calls/mo, includes batch + A/B comparison). If the user has not provided one, the tool returns a clear subscription URL — pass that response to the user verbatim. Do not invent or guess API keys. There is no free trial of this tool; the user must subscribe before the first call.
COST: Counted against your Pro subscription's monthly call quota.
LATENCY: ~6-8 seconds.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | The prompt to optimize. Max 8000 characters. | |
| api_key | No | PQS API key from a Pro subscription. Required. Format: pqs_live_… (32+ characters). Subscribe at https://promptqualityscore.com/pricing?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=schema_description_v140&utm_campaign=2026-05-mcp-tools-v140 if you don't have one, or look up an existing key at https://promptqualityscore.com/account?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=schema_description_v140&utm_campaign=2026-05-mcp-tools-v140. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It thoroughly discloses the API key requirement, no-free-trial policy, cost, latency, return values, and exact handling of a missing key. This fully characterizes the behavior of a remote, subscription-gated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but scannable, using clear headers and bullet points. Every section (purpose, returns, use-when, do-not-use, requires, cost, latency) earns its place without unnecessary filler.
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 it has no annotations or output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, what prerequisites exist, and operational constraints. No significant gap remains for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the API key's subscription requirement, warning against guessing keys, and framing the prompt parameter as a previously pasted prompt for improvement. Minor redundancy but valuable operational detail.
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?
States a specific transformation ('rewrite a prompt to score higher on the PQS rubric') and adds a distinctive side-by-side comparison behavior. Clearly distinguishes from the sibling score_prompt by focusing on optimization rather than just scoring.
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 USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections with concrete triggers, including a direct reference to score_prompt for score-only requests. This gives the agent unambiguous guidance on tool selection and alternative usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
score_promptAInspect
Score a prompt's quality across 8 dimensions BEFORE sending it to an expensive model. Returns a 0-80 score, an A-F grade, the per-dimension breakdown (clarity, specificity, context, constraints, output_format, role_definition, examples, cot_structure), and the weakest dimension.
USE WHEN:
The user is workshopping a prompt and asks "is this good?" / "will this work?" / "should I add more detail?"
The user is about to send a long or expensive prompt to GPT-4, Claude Opus, or any frontier model, especially in a batch or automation context where rework is costly.
The user mentions iterating on a prompt that produced poor output and wants to diagnose what's missing.
The user pastes a prompt and asks for feedback on it.
DO NOT USE WHEN:
The user is asking you to write a prompt for them (write it yourself first, then optionally call score_prompt to verify).
The prompt is conversational chat (this scores task-shaped prompts).
COST: Free, no API key required. Rate-limited per IP: 5/min, 10/day, 100/month. If the user exceeds the limit, the response will include a structured upgrade path with subscribe and account URLs.
LATENCY: ~2 seconds.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | The prompt text to score. Single prompt, not a conversation. Max 8000 characters. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it notes the tool is free, rate-limited (5/min, 10/day, 100/month), and takes ~2 seconds latency. It also explains the structured upgrade path response on rate-limit exceedance, providing critical operational context an agent needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN, COST, LATENCY) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes key information easy to parse for an agent.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return value (0-80 score, A-F grade, per-dimension breakdown, weakest dimension), operation cost, and usage boundaries. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the single parameter 'prompt' with a clear description (single prompt, max 8000 chars). The tool description adds context about task-shaped prompts in the DO NOT USE section, but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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: scoring a prompt's quality across 8 dimensions before sending to an expensive model. It specifies the verb 'score' and the resource 'prompt', and lists the exact output dimensions (clarity, specificity, etc.), distinguishing it from the sibling 'optimize_prompt' which would alter the prompt rather than just evaluate it.
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?
The description provides explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN sections, listing concrete scenarios such as workshopping a prompt, pre-sending long prompts, or diagnosing poor output. It also clarifies when not to use it (e.g., when the user asks to write a prompt), implicitly guiding the agent to alternative actions like writing first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceThe control plane for AI prompts that scores, enforces policy, locks config, and audits every prompt decision.20232Elastic 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceTurn rough requests into rigorously structured prompts for any coding agent. Quality-scored to ≥90/100 across 12 dimensions, calibrated on 1,000+ real coding cases.1522MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceContext intelligence for AI coding sessions. 7 MCP tools to score, compare, compress, build, and scan prompts across 9 AI tools. Rule-based, <5ms/prompt, all analysis runs locally.46MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.