Skip to main content
Glama

UseMyContext.ai

by io.github.usemycontext

Suggest a profile update

suggest_update

Suggest an update to the user's saved context (something you learned about them). It is saved as a PENDING suggestion for the user to review and accept or ignore - it does NOT directly change their profile, and nothing is ever written to their files. When a conversation has surfaced something new and durable about the user and is wrapping up (the user says thanks, goodbye, or that's all, or the task completes), offer to save it here before the context is lost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleNoOptional: name one of the user's OWN profiles by its public @handle (with or without the leading @), as listed by list_profiles - an alternative to projectId, and it takes precedence if both are given. Honored only for an account-wide connection; a single-project connection is already scoped and ignores it. A handle that is not one of the user's own profiles is refused outright, never quietly swapped for another profile. To read context someone ELSE shared with the user or published, use shared_context instead.
projectIdNoWhich of the user's profiles the suggestion belongs to - a projectId from list_profiles. Optional: on an account-wide connection, omitting it files the suggestion into the user's active profile (the result names it); pass a projectId to target a different profile. A single-project connection is already scoped and ignores this.
suggestionYesThe proposed fact or update about the user, in one short sentence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe pending suggestion's id.
statusYesAlways pending: the suggestion awaits the user's review.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / handle
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: name one of the user's OWN profiles by its public @handle (with or without the leading @), as listed by list_profiles - an alternative to projectId, and it takes precedence if both are given. Honored only for an account-wide connection; a single-project connection is already scoped and ignores it. A handle that is not one of the user's own profiles is refused outright, never quietly swapped for another profile. To read context someone ELSE shared with the user or published, use shared_context instead.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"Which of the user's profiles the suggestion belongs to - a projectId from list_profiles. REQUIRED for an account-wide connection; a single-project connection is already scoped and ignores this."New value: +"Which of the user's profiles the suggestion belongs to - a projectId from list_profiles. Optional: on an account-wide connection, omitting it files the suggestion into the user's active profile (the result names it); pass a projectId to target a different profile. A single-project connection is already scoped and ignores this."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which of the user's profiles the suggestion belongs to - a projectId from list_profiles. REQUIRED for an account-wide connection; a single-project connection is already scoped and ignores this.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only convey readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance: the update is pending, does not directly change the profile, and never modifies user files. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs to understand before calling the tool.

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 focused and efficiently opens with the action and its pending, non-destructive nature, then gives the concrete usage window. No filler or redundant elaboration is present.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the purpose, the exact trigger moment, the safety model, and what is not affected, and the output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. An agent has enough to know when to use this tool and what outcome to expect.

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%, and each parameter is already well documented with its own description. The tool description adds behavioral context but does not add beyond the parameter schemas, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it proposes a profile update for the user to review, not a direct change. This distinguishes it sharply from direct update or write tools and conveys an actionable resource and outcome.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly specifies when to use it: when a conversation surfaces new durable user information and is wrapping up with thanks, goodbye, or task completion. It also contrasts with shared_context for reading others' shared context, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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

All UseMyContext.ai 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clear boundaries, but fetch/get_file and search/search_files are explicit aliases of each other, creating redundant purposes. account vs info and list_files vs search_files also require careful reading to tell apart, though the descriptions do provide guidance.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb_noun names (list_files, query_table, suggest_update) with standalone nouns (account, info, profile) and bare verbs (fetch, search). The naming is readable and lowercase throughout, but the conventions are not uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is a reasonable, well-scoped number for a personal-context and document-access server. The two alias pairs add some redundancy but do not make the set feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core read-only workflows: discovering files, searching semantically, querying tabular data, retrieving full documents, reading profiles, and accessing shared context. Direct profile editing or file mutations are intentionally out of scope for this read-only connection, and suggest_update provides the one sanctioned write path.

Resources