Skip to main content
Glama
OnChainAIIntel

PQS - Prompt Quality Score

Official
by OnChainAIIntel
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions(1)
JavaScript
Remote

optimize_prompt

Rewrite any prompt to achieve a higher quality score, with side-by-side output comparisons showing the improvement.

Instructions

Rewrite a prompt to score higher on the PQS rubric, AND show before/after output comparisons so the user can see the impact. Returns the optimized prompt, the original PQS score, the optimized PQS score, and side-by-side sample outputs from a frontier model using both versions.

USE WHEN:

  • The user got a low score from score_prompt and asks how to improve.

  • The user explicitly asks to "improve" / "rewrite" / "fix" / "optimize" a prompt they pasted.

  • The user is dissatisfied with output quality from a previous prompt and asks how to get better results.

  • score_prompt returned a suggestion to invoke this tool.

DO NOT USE WHEN:

  • The user just asked for a score (use score_prompt only — don't double up).

  • The user wants you to write a new prompt from scratch (write it directly).

REQUIRES: A PQS API key from a Pro subscription ($19.99/month, 1,000 calls/mo, includes batch + A/B comparison). If the user has not provided one, the tool returns a clear subscription URL — pass that response to the user verbatim. Do not invent or guess API keys. There is no free trial of this tool; the user must subscribe before the first call.

COST: Counted against your Pro subscription's monthly call quota.

LATENCY: ~6-8 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesThe prompt to optimize. Max 8000 characters.
api_keyNoPQS API key from a Pro subscription. Required. Format: pqs_live_… (32+ characters). Subscribe at https://promptqualityscore.com/pricing?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=schema_description_v140&utm_campaign=2026-05-mcp-tools-v140 if you don't have one, or look up an existing key at https://promptqualityscore.com/account?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=schema_description_v140&utm_campaign=2026-05-mcp-tools-v140.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: it rewrites and shows comparisons, returns scores and outputs, requires an API key with subscription details, cost against quota, and latency of 6-8 seconds. Also explains the fallback when no API key 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections and bullet points, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more concise; some repetition exists, such as 'score higher on the PQS rubric' appearing multiple times.

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?

Comprehensive: explains return values despite no output schema, covers prerequisites, cost, latency, and when to use sibling. The tool's purpose and constraints are fully captured, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context: the API key format, subscription URL, and behavior when key is missing. This goes beyond the schema but is not essential since schema already covers basics.

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 clearly states the tool rewrites a prompt to score higher on the PQS rubric and provides before/after comparisons. It distinguishes from the sibling 'score_prompt' by explicitly noting that 'score_prompt only scores' and this tool optimizes and compares.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections, listing specific conditions such as when the user asks for improvement or when score_prompt suggests it. Also clarifies when not to use it, e.g., if only a score is requested.

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/OnChainAIIntel/pqs-mcp-server'

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