get_contextGet context from the user's connected workspaces and websites. The attached widget displays only the list of sources consulted — it does not show the retrieved content, so use the returned context to answer the user directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Optional mode to weight results (e.g. 'customer-support') | |
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable operational caveat: the attached widget shows only sources consulted, not retrieved content, so the agent must use the returned context itself. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The key limitation is front-loaded in the second sentence and directly informs how to use the tool's output.
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?
An output schema exists and the annotations are rich, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety properties. It supplies the important widget caveat, but it still leaves parameter meaning and sibling-tool selection largely to the schema or inference.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: the required query parameter has no description, while mode has only a brief example. The description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap in parameter semantics.
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 gives a clear verb and resource: retrieve context from the user's connected workspaces and websites. It is more specific than the bare tool name, but it does not explicitly distinguish this retrieval from sibling tools like get_memory or ask_question.
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 implies the tool should be used to gather context for answering the user, and it tells the agent to use the returned context directly. However, it does not state when to choose this over get_memory or ask_question, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.