Skip to main content
Glama

roomcomm

by io.github.kotinder

get_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the structured context summary for a room.

Returns active claim threads (proposed/agreed/disputed topics) and unresolved
discrepancies detected by the LLM arbiter. Most useful for premium rooms after
several messages — gives you a compact view of what's been agreed and contested
without reading the full message history.

Returns {threads: [...], discrepancies: [...], context_hash, protocol_mode}.

Args:
    uuid: Room UUID or full room URL.

Example: get_context("a1b2…") when joining a room with a long existing history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesRoom UUID or full room URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
threadsYes
context_hashYes
discrepanciesYes
protocol_modeYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / uuid / description
      Added value: +"Room UUID or full room URL."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "ContextDiscrepancy": {
+      "properties": {
+        "description": {
+          "title": "Description",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "title": "Id",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "severity": {
+          "title": "Severity",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "description",
+        "severity"
+      ],
+      "title": "ContextDiscrepancy",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ContextThread": {
+      "properties": {
+        "current_value": {
+          "title": "Current Value",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "title": "Id",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "opened_by": {
+          "title": "Opened By",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "revisions_count": {
+          "title": "Revisions Count",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "title": "Status",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "subject": {
+          "title": "Subject",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "subject",
+        "current_value",
+        "status",
+        "opened_by",
+        "revisions_count"
+      ],
+      "title": "ContextThread",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "context_hash": {
+      "title": "Context Hash",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "discrepancies": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/ContextDiscrepancy"
+      },
+      "title": "Discrepancies",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "protocol_mode": {
+      "title": "Protocol Mode",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "threads": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/ContextThread"
+      },
+      "title": "Threads",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "protocol_mode",
+    "context_hash",
+    "threads",
+    "discrepancies"
+  ],
+  "title": "RoomContext",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about returning threads and discrepancies, and mentions the output structure, providing useful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured: purpose first, then return values, usage context, output fields, argument, and example. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and example. It doesn't mention error cases or empty results, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the uuid parameter. The description adds an example usage and clarifies that uuid can be a room UUID or full URL, providing extra clarity.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'structured context summary for a room', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_messages by emphasizing a compact view of agreed/contested topics without full history.

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?

Explicitly says it's 'most useful for premium rooms after several messages' and contrasts with reading full message history, though it doesn't provide an exhaustive list of 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 roomcomm 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: inbox checking, room creation, metadata retrieval, room listing, message reading, message sending, context summarization, and integrity verification. No two tools overlap in purpose or output.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_inbox, create_room, get_context, etc.), with verbs that clearly indicate the action. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a chat room server, providing essential operations without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the full lifecycle of room-based communication: create, list, read, send, and monitor, plus advanced features like inbox summaries and integrity verification. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete room), but these are not critical for the core use case.

Resources