Skip to main content
Glama

Oi

by io.github.carhaix

List Contexts

oi.contexts.list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a paginated preview of Oi Contexts available to this organization. This is the primary listing tool for requests like oi list, oi list contexts, $Oi list contexts, or show available Contexts in Oi. Treat oi, and $Oi as equivalent invocation forms. This returns at most 10 records and is not exhaustive. If the user names an Context or selector, call oi.contexts.use with that raw contextId instead of using this list to pre-validate existence.

Plan and Billing

Current organization plan: Business. Current limits: 10,000 seats; 10,000 private Guardrails; 10,000 private Skills; 10,000 private Contexts; 10,000 private Workflows; 10,000 Connections; 10,000 API keys; 1,000,000 Agent messages per day; 1,000,000 Agent messages per month. Billing and upgrades: https://app.oioioi.ai/dashboard/organization/billing. When a user asks for work that exceeds the current plan or an unavailable paid capability, do the portion available on the current plan, clearly say what is blocked by the plan, and include the billing link for upgrading. Do not invent exceptions, temporary limit increases, prices, or hidden capabilities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoAlias for query. Optional text filter for narrowing the Context list.
queryNoOptional text filter. Best-effort match on Context names, roles, descriptions, tags, and related text.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextsYes
workflowsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns at most 10 records, is not exhaustive, and is scoped to the organization. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 first paragraph is tight and front-loaded with the core purpose and routing guidance. However, the large 'Plan and Billing' section is generic, mostly unrelated to invoking this list tool, and adds considerable length; it likely appears across many tools and dilutes the tool-specific description.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description adds the key missing behavioral details: pagination limit, non-exhaustiveness, and when to route to oi.contexts.use instead. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it omits any guidance about oi.contexts.search.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with both 'text' and 'query' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond recognizing 'text' as an alias for 'query,' so it does not meaningfully compensate or improve on the schema.

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 a specific action ('List a paginated preview of Oi Contexts available to this organization') and ties it to common invocation phrases like 'oi list contexts.' It also distinguishes itself from oi.contexts.use by saying direct context/selector requests should go there, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling oi.contexts.search.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance (primary listing tool for list-style requests), and explicitly says not to use it to pre-validate existence when a named context or selector is given, routing to oi.contexts.use instead. It does not mention oi.contexts.search as an alternative for more exhaustive discovery, leaving a small gap.

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

All Oi 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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).

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources