Un motor universal de creación de prompts entregado como un servidor MCP. Mide la intención a través de 12 dimensiones filosóficas y devuelve una base de construcción a partir de la cual el cliente construye los prompts.
El motor no genera prompts. Proporciona la base dimensional —constructos activos, opuestos de espectro, tensiones, gemas, radios, pares de armonización y preguntas de construcción— que hacen que la construcción de prompts sea fundamentada en lugar de heurística.
# Install
pip install advanced-prompting-engine
# Or run directly via uvx
uvx advanced-prompting-engineAñadir a tu .mcp.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"advanced-prompting-engine": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["advanced-prompting-engine"]
}
}
}Related MCP server: MCP Prompt Optimizer
El motor posiciona tu intención en una variedad filosófica de 12 dimensiones:
Cara | Subdimensiones | Fase |
Ontología | Particular ↔ Universal, Estático ↔ Dinámico | Comprensión |
Epistemología | Empírico ↔ Racional, Cierto ↔ Provisional | Comprensión |
Axiología | Absoluto ↔ Relativo, Cuantitativo ↔ Cualitativo | Comprensión |
Teleología | Inmediato ↔ Último, Intencional ↔ Emergente | Comprensión |
Fenomenología | Objetivo ↔ Subjetivo, Superficial ↔ Profundo | Comprensión |
Ética | Deontológico ↔ Consecuencial, Agente ↔ Acto | Evaluación |
Estética | Autónomo ↔ Contextual, Sensorial ↔ Conceptual | Evaluación |
Praxeología | Individual ↔ Coordinado, Reactivo ↔ Proactivo | Aplicación |
Metodología | Analítico ↔ Sintético, Deductivo ↔ Inductivo | Aplicación |
Semiótica | Explícito ↔ Implícito, Sintáctico ↔ Semántico | Aplicación |
Hermenéutica | Literal ↔ Figurativo, Intención del autor ↔ Respuesta del lector | Aplicación |
Heurística | Sistemático ↔ Intuitivo, Conservador ↔ Exploratorio | Aplicación |
Cada cara es una cuadrícula de 12x12 con 144 puntos de observación epistémica. La posición determina la clasificación (esquina/punto medio/borde/centro), la potencia y la pertenencia al espectro. Las 12 caras están organizadas como 6 pares complementarios (modelo de cubo) con armonización a través de superficies compartidas. El motor calcula las tensiones mediante correspondencia posicional, gemas (integraciones entre caras) con modulación de nivel de cubo, radios (firmas de comportamiento por cara) y una puntuación de coherencia de gema central.
Herramienta | Propósito |
| Primaria — entrada de intención o coordenada, salida de base de construcción |
| Interpretación — lectura en lenguaje sencillo de una base de construcción |
| Experto — recorrido de grafos, pruebas de estrés, triangulación |
| Autoría — añadir constructos y relaciones con detección de contradicciones |
create_prompt_basis(intent="Design an ethical framework for autonomous vehicle decision-making")El motor localiza esta intención a través de las 12 dimensiones filosóficas y devuelve:
{
"coordinate": {
"epistemology": {"x": 4, "y": 4, "weight": 0.76},
"ontology": {"x": 6, "y": 5, "weight": 0.73},
"praxeology": {"x": 7, "y": 4, "weight": 0.72},
"heuristics": {"x": 5, "y": 3, "weight": 0.66},
"phenomenology": {"x": 7, "y": 4, "weight": 0.61},
"ethics": {"x": 6, "y": 4, "weight": 0.53},
"...": "...all 12 faces with (x,y) position and relevance weight"
},
"harmonization": [
{"pair": ["ontology", "praxeology"], "resonance": 0.15},
{"pair": ["axiology", "ethics"], "resonance": 0.05},
"...6 complementary pairs with resonance scores"
],
"spokes": {
"ontology": {"classification": "weakly_integrated", "strength": 0.042},
"epistemology": {"classification": "weakly_integrated", "strength": 0.039},
"...": "...per-face behavioral signatures"
},
"central_gem": {"coherence": 0.69, "classification": "highly_coherent"},
"construction_questions": {
"ethics": {
"template": "What moral obligations does this prompt impose or assume?",
"position_summary": "balanced Deontological/Consequential + moderately Agent-focused",
"meaning_mechanism": "composition",
"phase": "evaluation"
},
"...": "...12 position-specific philosophical questions to guide prompt construction"
}
}El resultado te indica: esta intención trata principalmente sobre la validación del conocimiento (epistemología 0.76), qué entidades existen (ontología 0.73) y la estructura de acción (praxeología 0.72). La ética se registra en 0.53 — presente pero no dominante. La armonización muestra que la ontología y la praxeología resuenan fuertemente (0.15) — el "qué existe" teórico se alinea con el "cómo actuar" práctico.
Para un control preciso, pasa una coordenada directamente:
coordinate = {
"ontology": {"x": 0, "y": 0, "weight": 1.0}, # corner: particular + static
"ethics": {"x": 0, "y": 11, "weight": 0.9}, # corner: deontological + act
"methodology": {"x": 0, "y": 0, "weight": 0.8}, # corner: analytic + deductive
# ...all 12 faces with x (0-11), y (0-11), weight (0-1)
}
result = create_prompt_basis(coordinate=coordinate)Stack: Python + NetworkX (topología) + numpy (cálculo) + SQLite (persistencia) + MCP SDK
Grafo: 1873 nodos, 2279 aristas (12 caras × 144 constructos + 132 nexos + 1 gema central)
Pipeline: 8 etapas (Analizador de intención → Resolutor de coordenadas → Computador de posición → Resolutor de constructos → Analizador de tensiones → Analizador de nexos/gemas → Analizador de radios → Puente de construcción)
Geometría: Equilibrio vectorial (cuboctaedro) como topología latente entre caras, modelo de cubo para 6 pares complementarios
Despliegue: Proceso único, transporte stdio, sin demonio, sin dependencias externas
docs/DESIGN.md — Especificación completa del diseño
docs/CONSTRUCT-v2.md — Especificación del constructo (qué son las caras, puntos, espectros, nexos, gemas y radios)
docs/CONSTRUCT-v2-questions.md — 144 plantillas de preguntas de construcción por zona
docs/adr/ — 13 Registros de decisiones de arquitectura
pip install -e ".[dev]"
pytest tests/ -vEl paquete distribuido incluye artefactos precalculados derivados de BGE (semantic_bridge.npz, semantic_vocab.json). Para reconstruirlos desde cero (por ejemplo, después de ediciones de sinónimos de polos), instala los extras de compilación:
pip install -e ".[build]"
python -m nltk.downloader wordnet omw-1.4
python scripts/build_semantic_bridge.pyLa compilación utiliza BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5 (~1.3 GB, descargado una vez a la caché de HuggingFace) y wordfreq para el orden de frecuencia. Las dependencias de tiempo de ejecución no se ven afectadas — los usuarios finales solo reciben los artefactos precalculados.
Consulta CONTRIBUTING.md para la configuración y directrices de desarrollo.
Consulta SECURITY.md para obtener instrucciones sobre cómo informar vulnerabilidades.
MIT
Measure intent across 12 philosophical dimensions and return a construction basis.
Use this before constructing any prompt where dimensional precision, philosophical coherence, or systematic completeness matters.
Provide either 'intent' (natural language) or 'coordinate' (JSON object with 12 faces, each having x, y, weight).
Output modes (mutually exclusive, focused takes priority):
Default: full output (~50KB) with all pipeline data
compact=true: summary fields only (~2KB)
focused=true: guidance-centric output (~500 bytes) with dominant dimensions, gaps, resonance, and coherence — what a prompt engineer needs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | No | ||
| coordinate | No | ||
| compact | No | ||
| focused | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It outlines output modes (default, compact, focused) with approximate sizes, and describes the coordinate structure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but as a read-like creation tool, the disclosure is adequate.
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?
Three short paragraphs (about 100 words) that are front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage and output details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.
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 0 required params, 4 optional params, and an output schema, the description covers input options and output modes well. It could briefly name the 12 dimensions, but the output schema likely details that. Overall, sufficient for an AI agent.
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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that 'intent' is natural language, 'coordinate' is a JSON object with 12 faces (x, y, weight), and that compact/focused control output verbosity. This adds crucial meaning absent from the schema.
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 measures intent across 12 philosophical dimensions and returns a construction basis. It uses specific verbs ('measure', 'return') and a clear resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on basis creation for dimensional precision.
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 advises using this tool before constructing prompts where dimensional precision, coherence, or completeness matters. It also explains input options (intent or coordinate) and output modes, but does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Explore the philosophical manifold. Operations: list_faces, list_constructs, get_construct, get_neighborhood, find_path, get_spoke, stress_test, triangulate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | ||
| face | No | ||
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| target_face | No | ||
| target_x | No | ||
| target_y | No | ||
| coordinate | No | ||
| coordinate_a | No | ||
| coordinate_b | No | ||
| classification | No | ||
| provenance | No | merged |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. Only states 'explore', which is non-committal.
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?
Short two sentences, but front-loading with vague phrase reduces impact. List of operations is useful but could be structured better. Minimal but not overly concise for the complexity.
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?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema coverage, description is severely incomplete. No explanation of operations, their required parameters, or return values. Output schema exists but unmentioned.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It only lists operation names without explaining any parameter. Parameters like x, y, face, etc. are not described, leaving agent guessing.
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 verb 'explore' is vague and 'philosophical manifold' is abstract, but listing operations gives some idea. Not a tautology, but doesn't clearly state concrete purpose. Distinguishes from sibling tools implicitly via domain, but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not suggest scenarios or mention sibling tools. The list of operations implies different behaviors, but no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add constructs or relations to the graph. Contradiction detection is automatic.
Operations: add_construct, add_relation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes | ||
| face | No | ||
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| question | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| target_id | No | ||
| relation_type | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| override_reason | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Notes automatic contradiction detection, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description should disclose more about side effects, reversibility, and required permissions; it only provides one behavioral insight.
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?
Two sentences plus a list of operations make it concise, but it lacks structure and omits important details; every sentence is functional but incomplete.
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?
With 12 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool is complex. The description does not explain return values (output schema exists) or how to use parameters, leaving significant gaps.
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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters (e.g., face, x, y, tags, strength). Users must infer meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.
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?
Description clearly states 'Add constructs or relations to the graph' and lists two operations (add_construct, add_relation). It distinguishes the tool's action from siblings like create_prompt_basis, explore_space, interpret_basis, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only mentions available operations without context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Interpret a construction basis produced by create_prompt_basis.
Takes the JSON output from create_prompt_basis and returns a plain-language interpretation of the philosophical measurement. Extracts the guidance section and formats it as readable text with dominant dimensions, gaps, and strongest resonance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| basis | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description details the tool's behavior: extracts the guidance section and formats it as readable text with dominant dimensions, gaps, and strongest resonance. This goes beyond a simple 'interpret' to specify output content.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.
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 one parameter with no schema coverage, the description fully explains the parameter and behavior. Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The tool is simple and well-described.
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?
The only parameter 'basis' has no schema description, but the description compensates by specifying it expects 'JSON output from create_prompt_basis', adding essential meaning to the raw type string.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'interpret' and the resource 'construction basis produced by create_prompt_basis', effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like create_prompt_basis (which produces the basis).
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?
Description implies usage context: takes JSON output from create_prompt_basis. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the dependency on a prior tool output is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0create_prompt_basisexplore_spaceextend_schemainterpret_basisScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose: create measures intent, explore navigates the manifold, extend modifies the graph, interpret explains results. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_prompt_basis, explore_space, extend_schema, interpret_basis), making it easy to predict tool roles.
Four tools is an ideal number for a specialized philosophical engine, covering core operations without unnecessary bloat.
The toolkit covers creation, exploration, extension, and interpretation. The only minor gap is the lack of a deletion or reset tool, but this is acceptable for a focused engine.
MCP server for generating rough-draft project plans from natural-language prompts.
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Capability registry for the agentic economy. Semantic search over verified MCP server listings.
Hosted MCP server and Agent Skills for specs, engineering threads, and project memory.
