thinkhard.si prompt tools

Grade a prompt out of 10

grade_prompt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Score a prompt out of 10 on the ten checks thinkhard.si uses (what to make, who it is for, background facts, length, format, what to avoid, what good looks like, an example, what to do if unsure, layout for the model). Returns which checks pass and a plain question for each one that fails. Rule-based and instant; use it to see what a prompt is missing before improving it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	The prompt to grade (the user message).
`system`	No	Optional system prompt, graded together with the prompt.
`target`	No	The model it is for. Layout is judged for this model.	any

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`band`	Yes	The score in a word.
`score`	Yes	Out of 10.
`checks`	Yes	The ten checks, in order.
`target`	Yes	The model it was read for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "band": {
+      "description": "The score in a word.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checks": {
+      "description": "The ten checks, in order.",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "check": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "pass": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "check",
+          "pass"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "Out of 10.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "target": {
+      "description": "The model it was read for.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "score",
+    "band",
+    "target",
+    "checks"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting it is rule-based and instant, and by describing that failures come back as plain questions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and stays compact. The parenthetical list of checks is long but directly relevant to understanding what the score means.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers purpose, usage context, speed, and failure behavior, leaving no major gap for an agent calling this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it scores a prompt out of 10 against ten named checks. It also explains the result shape (pass/fail plus failure questions), so the tool is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_prompt or search_prompts.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use it: before improving a prompt, to see what is missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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

All thinkhard.si prompt tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?