oi.contexts.getReturn the reusable compiled prompt for a specific Oi Context. Prefer oi.contexts.use when you already have a concrete task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contextId | Yes | Raw Context selector to load, including optional + multi-context selectors and @version pins. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usage | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| continuation | No | ||
| executionPlan | No | ||
| firstAnswerQuality | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description makes the primary behavior clear: it returns a compiled prompt. However, all annotations are false, so there is no disclosed safety profile, and the description does not mention whether invoking this tool has any side effects, usage tracking, or auth implications. It is not contradictory, but it adds only modest behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second provides routing guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The sibling routing guidance and the schema's parameter documentation cover the essential context.
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 sole parameter contextId is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add selector syntax, version-pin details, or multi-context behavior beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the reusable compiled prompt for a specific Oi Context.' It also distinguishes itself from oi.contexts.use, so an agent can tell this tool apart from its closest sibling.
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?
It explicitly says to prefer oi.contexts.use when a concrete task already exists, giving a clear selection rule between get and use. This is direct, actionable guidance rather than leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Resource prefixes (contexts, skills, guardrails, workflows, connections) make most tools clearly distinct, and parallel lifecycle verbs are scoped by resource name. The main ambiguity is within the guardrails publish/release/unpublish lifecycle and between brain.save-feedback, contexts.save-draft-feedback, and the two report tools, though detailed descriptions mostly resolve it.
Tools overwhelmingly follow an oi.<resource>.<verb> snake_case pattern, with create/get/list/update/use repeated consistently across resource types. Deviations include resource-less oi.recommend, noun-style oi.auth.whoami, and inconsistent release handling (separate guardrails.release vs action=release on contexts/skills update).
38 tools is too many for a single server, mainly because the same lifecycle pattern is repeated across Contexts, Skills, Guardrails, and Workflows. Each tool may be individually justifiable, but the set feels bloated and could benefit from consolidation or splitting into per-resource servers.
CRUD coverage is uneven: Guardrails have create/update/delete/list/get plus publish/unpublish/release, while Contexts, Skills, and Workflows lack any delete or archive tool, and Brain has only save-feedback with no read/update/delete path. Connections and auth are read/use-only, which may be intentional but leaves management actions absent.