Skip to main content
Glama
CodesWhat

portkey-admin-mcp

by CodesWhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

run_prompt_completion

Executes a stored prompt against the configured model and returns the completion for billable generation use cases. Validate templates and billing metadata first to avoid unnecessary charges.

Instructions

Execute a prompt against the configured model and return the completion. This makes a billable model call, so use render_prompt first when you want to check the template and validate_completion_metadata when billing fields are uncertain.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metadataYesBilling metadata - client_id, app, env are REQUIRED for cost attribution
prompt_idYesPrompt ID or slug to execute
variablesYesVariable values to substitute into the template
hyperparametersNoOverride default hyperparameters

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded and returned structured data
dataNoStructured success payload when ok is true
errorNoStructured error payload when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.9
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / variables / additionalProperties / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / variables / additionalProperties / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "boolean"
+]
  3. Addedv1.0.1
  4. Removed
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely important fact the annotations don't convey: the call is billable, which changes how cautiously an agent should invoke it. It stops short of describing output shape or failure/retry behavior, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Two sentences, action first, cost warning and alternative-routing second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering side-effect hints, the main gap the description needed to fill was cost/billability, which it does. A little more on what happens on failure or whether retries double-bill a non-idempotent call would make it complete.

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% and the nested metadata object documents required fields (client_id, app, env) plus the variables and hyperparameters objects. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Execute a prompt against the configured model') plus the observable outcome ('return the completion'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like render_prompt and validate_completion_metadata, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use render_prompt first to check the template, and validate_completion_metadata when billing fields are uncertain. This is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance an agent needs, with no inference required.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools