agentforge-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGENTFORGE_API_KEY | Yes | Required. Your API key. | |
| AGENTFORGE_API_URL | No | Override the endpoint (rarely needed). | https://agentforge.sciscale.org/api/v1/refine |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| agentforge_refine_promptA | Turn a rough, plain-language coding request into a structured, tool-tuned prompt for an AI coding agent. AgentForge extracts the real requirements, fills in missing edge cases, formats the prompt for the target agent's conventions, and runs it through a Quality Engine before returning it. Reach for this when a request is vague or under-specified and you want a sharper prompt before handing it to a coding agent. Args:
Returns the refined prompt as text. structuredContent additionally carries: { "prompt": string, "tier": "free" | "pro", "quality": { "score": number, "max_score": number, "passed": boolean } | null, "usage": { "used_today": number, "limit": number | null } } Errors are returned as text, e.g.:
|
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool has a clear, distinct purpose.
The single tool name 'agentforge_refine_prompt' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with a server prefix. As there is only one tool, naming consistency is perfect.
Having a single tool is appropriate for the focused purpose of prompt refinement, but it falls on the low end of the typical well-scoped range (3-15 tools). The server could potentially benefit from a few related tools, but the current count is not problematic.
The tool fully covers its domain: it refines a coding request with parameters for target tool and style, and returns the refined prompt along with quality and usage information. There are no obvious missing features for its stated purpose.