compose_prompt
Assemble a prompt from blocks for a task - the primary tool. Costs 5 credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| block_ids | No | ||
| variables | No | ||
| max_blocks | No | ||
| category_filter | No | ||
| task_description | Yes |
PromptDNA
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a cost of 5 credits, which is useful but insufficient. No information about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, but its brevity sacrifices critical information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and cost, but the second sentence is trivial. The conciseness does not earn its place because it omits essential usage details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain the workflow of assembling prompts from blocks, how parameters interact, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools like 'get_block' have simpler contexts, making this omission more severe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. Essential details about 'block_ids', 'variables', 'category_filter', and 'max_blocks' are entirely absent, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool assembles a prompt from blocks for a task, and calls itself 'the primary tool,' which clearly distinguishes its main purpose from siblings like 'find_compatible_blocks' or 'get_block.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_compatible_blocks' or 'search_blocks.' The statement 'the primary tool' vaguely implies priority, but offers no explicit when/when-not criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
Tool Count4/5
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.