Skip to main content
Glama

Persistent Project Context for xAI Grok

by io.github.Wolfe-Jam

Get Context Soul

get_soul
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a context soul by name. Returns structured AI context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
soulYesSoul identifier (e.g., "spacex", "wolfe", "grok")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "content": {
-      "items": {
-        "properties": {
-          "text": {
-            "description": "Human-readable tool result.",
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "type": {
-            "const": "text",
-            "type": "string"
-          }
-        },
-        "required": [
-          "type",
-          "text"
-        ],
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "isError": {
-      "description": "True when the tool failed.",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "content",
-    "isError"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "content": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "text": {
+            "description": "Human-readable tool result.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "const": "text",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "type",
+          "text"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "isError": {
+      "description": "True when the tool failed.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "content",
+    "isError"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result is structured AI context, which is useful, but does not discuss what happens when a soul is not found or any return format details. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence about structured context is useful but somewhat vague, making it earn its place without being redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. However it does not explain what a 'soul' is, provide context about the returned 'structured AI context', or mention any edge cases, while there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'soul' parameter, including examples like 'spacex'. The description's 'by name' aligns with the schema's 'identifier' and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the 100% coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('a context soul'), and a selection mechanism ('by name'), which clearly states the core action. It is distinguishable from the faf_* sibling tools, though the term 'soul' is never defined, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by name/identifier' implies that this tool is for retrieving a known soul rather than searching or discovering one, which is a legitimate implicit usage signal. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it.

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

All Persistent Project Context for xAI Grok toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several faf_* tools overlap: faf_score, faf_validate, faf_analyze, and faf_gate all grade or gate content, while faf_get_tier and gf_analyze both address tier determination. Search and discovery also fragment into faf_collections_search, search_context, search_bfy_tag, list_tags, and tag_intel, making it easy for an agent to pick a nearly-equivalent tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set consistently uses snake_case and leans heavily on the faf_ domain prefix, but the style is not uniform: faf_score, faf_validate, and faf_estimate_tokens are action-based, while faf_memory, faf_section, and faf_gate are noun- or verb-like with less clear command intent. Overall still readable, but the pattern is mixed.

Tool Count3/5

19 tools is at the upper end of a reasonable number for a context/analysis system, especially with faf_ prefix family. However, some tools could be consolidated; faf_analyze overlaps faf_score+validate+get_tier, the several gone by explicit domain; several search/ag tools overlap, and the broad read-only surface leaves no obvious fns for create/update/delete operations.

Completeness2/5

This is a heavy read/analysis and scoring surface, but it lacks obvious write/update/delete primitives for persistent context entities. There are soul list/get and search tools, a faf generator, scoring/validation tools, and recommendations, but no create_soul, update_soul, delete_soul, or analogous persistent mutation operations for .faf/.fafm data. For 'persistent project context,' the set feels read-only and incomplete.

Resources