handy_prompt_lab

by glitchassassin

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Freeze prompt candidate

freeze_prompt_candidate

Freeze a prompt candidate to secure it for sealed holdout evaluation.

Instructions

Freezes a candidate before sealed holdout evaluation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "candidateId": "<candidateId>"
    },
    "name": "freeze_prompt_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidateId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, implying mutation, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'freezes' behavioral context but does not detail implications (e.g., irreversibility, state changes). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is too terse to convey necessary information. It lacks structure and detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's role in a pipeline and lack of output schema, the description should explain what 'freeze' means and any side effects. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has one parameter (candidateId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain this parameter or its role, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.

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 action (freeze) and the object (candidate) with context (before sealed holdout evaluation). It distinguishes from siblings like run_holdout_eval or promote_candidate_to_lm_studio, indicating a specific pipeline step.

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 vs. alternatives. It only says 'before sealed holdout evaluation' but does not explain prerequisites or conditions that would trigger this tool.

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