Oi

Update Context

oi.contexts.update

Update an existing private Oi Context draft in the current organization, including plaintext license metadata. Pass action=release to release the updated draft.

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

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Optional Context name.
`slug`	No	Optional organization-unique slug using lowercase letters, numbers, and hyphens.
`tags`	No	Optional tags.
`action`	No	Optional update action. Omit to save draft metadata only.
`skills`	No	Optional skill identifiers.
`content`	No	Optional markdown Context content.
`enabled`	No	Whether the Context is enabled.
`license`	No	Optional plaintext license or reuse terms for this Context.
`contextId`	Yes	Context id or slug to update. Use a latest mutable Context, not a multi-context selector.
`categories`	No	Optional category labels.
`sourceSlug`	No	Optional source repository or public Context slug for provenance.
`syncEnabled`	No	Whether future source sync should be enabled.
`privateContent`	No	Optional private markdown instructions for this organization.
`shortDescription`	No	Optional short summary.
`sourceOrganizationSlug`	No	Optional source owner slug for provenance.
`suggestedFollowUpsEnabled`	No	Whether clients may suggest follow-up prompts.
`allowRuntimeInstructionUpdates`	No	Whether runtime feedback may update private instructions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool updates a private draft, operates in the current organization, includes license metadata, and can release the updated draft. It also communicates plan limits and the instruction not to invent exceptions, which is useful agent-facing behavior.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded with tool-specific purpose. However, the large 'Plan and Billing' block is boilerplate policy that is not specific to this tool and adds length, even though it may be operationally valuable in the broader agent context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 params, one required), the description covers the essential lifecycle behavior (draft update and release), scoping to the current organization, and plan constraints. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit partial-update/merge semantics, but the description is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 17 parameters already have descriptive meaning. The description adds emphasis on license metadata and the release action but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing private Oi Context draft in the current organization.' It also defines the special action=release state transition, which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like oi.contexts.create, oi.contexts.get, and oi.contexts.list.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when updating an existing private draft, with optional release via action=release. It also warns against multi-context selectors in the contextId parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use create for new contexts,' so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Oi tools Inspect

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.

Update Context

Plan and Billing

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources