Skip to main content
Glama

Oi

by io.github.carhaix

Search Contexts

oi.contexts.search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Contexts by need, title, tag, category, or organization. This uses the app-global search path: organization/private results are returned first, then public marketplace results fill the remaining slots. Use this when the user is unsure which Context exists or wants to discover a Context before creating a Workflow.

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
limitNoMaximum results to return, up to 20.
queryYesSearch query.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining result ordering: organization/private results first, then public marketplace results. This helps the agent set expectations about the returned set.

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 tool-specific first paragraph is tight and front-loaded, but the large 'Plan and Billing' section is unrelated boilerplate that does not help an agent invoke this specific search tool. It adds significant length without earning its place in this tool's definition.

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?

For a simple read-only search with two documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers semantics, result ordering, and the intended discovery scenario. The billing section is irrelevant but does not create a functional gap in the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both query and limit have descriptions in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying what the query can target (need, title, tag, category, or organization) and by explaining the global search path, which informs how results are ranked/filled.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Contexts'), and search dimensions ('need, title, tag, category, or organization'). It also distinguishes itself from plain list/get tools by describing the app-global search path and marketplace result inclusion, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like 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 gives a clear trigger: 'Use this when the user is unsure which Context exists or wants to discover a Context before creating a Workflow.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the intended scenario is concrete enough to guide selection.

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