Skip to main content
Glama

recommend_strategy

Analyze tasks to recommend optimal reasoning frameworks for AI agents, selecting from 40 distinct strategies based on task complexity and category.

Instructions

Analyze a task and recommend the optimal reasoning framework.

Returns the detected category, complexity_score, recommended framework, and alternative options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe task or question to analyze
contextNoAdditional context about the task

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the recommend_strategy MCP tool in src/promptcore/main.py. It takes a task and context, uses the selector dependency to analyze them, and returns a dictionary with the recommended framework, complexity, and other analysis details.
    @mcp.tool()
    def recommend_strategy(
        task: Annotated[str, "The task or question to analyze"],
        context: Annotated[str, "Additional context about the task"] = "",
    ) -> dict:
        """
        Analyze a task and recommend the optimal reasoning framework.
        
        Returns the detected category, complexity_score, recommended framework,
        and alternative options.
        """
        deps = get_dependencies()
        analysis = deps.selector.analyze(task, context)
        
        return {
            "category": analysis.category.value,
            "complexity": {
                "score": analysis.complexity_score,
                "level": analysis.complexity_level.value,
            },
            "recommended_framework": analysis.recommended_framework,
            "reasoning": analysis.reasoning,
            "alternatives": analysis.alternative_frameworks,
        }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a category, complexity_score, recommended framework, and alternatives, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only analysis (implied but not stated), computational cost, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs analysis.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The second sentence efficiently lists return values. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output, and it includes a minor redundancy ('optimal' and 'recommended' overlap), preventing a perfect score.

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 moderate complexity (analysis with two parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and output at a high level, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance characteristics, which holds it back from a score of 5.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters ('task' and 'context'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'task' or how 'context' influences the analysis), resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a task and recommend the optimal reasoning framework.' It specifies the verb ('analyze' and 'recommend') and resource ('task' and 'reasoning framework'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_available_frameworks' or 'generate_meta_prompt', which prevents a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_available_frameworks' (which might list frameworks without analysis) or 'generate_meta_prompt' (which might use a framework), leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BlinkVoid/PromptSmith'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server