Compose a ready-to-use prompt from explicit Role, Task, Context, and Format parts. Use when the user already knows the pieces and wants them woven into one clean prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | Who the AI should be | |
| task | Yes | What the AI should do | |
| format | No | How the answer should be shaped | |
| context | No | Background the AI needs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool composes a prompt but does not disclose any additional behavior such as validation, length constraints beyond what the schema already provides, or the output format. The description is adequate but could offer more context.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (4 string parameters, no output schema), the description explains the input structure and the output (ready-to-use prompt). It could explicitly mention the output is a string, but the context is sufficient for correct use.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema's individual parameter descriptions provide. It only groups the parameters into categories (Role, Task, Context, Format), which adds minimal value.
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 tool composes a prompt from explicit parts (Role, Task, Context, Format) and distinguishes it from the sibling 'improve_prompt' by specifying use when the user already knows the pieces.
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 description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user already knows the pieces and wants them woven'), implying that for improving existing prompts the sibling should be used. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: build_prompt composes given parts into a prompt, while improve_prompt rewrites a vague prompt into a structured one. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (build_prompt, improve_prompt), making it predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for its stated domain of RTCF prompt construction. It covers basic creation and improvement but lacks other useful operations like parsing or validation.
The tools cover the core tasks of building a prompt from scratch and improving an existing one. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for extracting parts from a prompt or validating structure, but the main workflows are supported.
