Oi

Use Context

oi.contexts.use

Use Oi Contexts for a concrete task. This is the primary tool for requests like oi designer review this flow, oi ctx growth-lead inspect pricing, or $Oi context product-manager review this roadmap. Treat oi, and $Oi as equivalent invocation forms. When the user names one or more Contexts, pass the raw selector unchanged as contextId, including + multi-context selectors of up to 3 Contexts and @2 or @v2 version pins, for example head-of-product@3+gtm-strategist+staff-engineer. The selectors ctx, context, and contexts are reserved Context type selectors, not Context ids; strip them and use this Context path. The selectors workflow, workflows, and wf are reserved for Workflows, not Contexts; use the Workflow path instead of longer Context chains. Do not first list contexts or treat a missing list preview item as absent. Without contextId, Oi routes implicitly. Returns an execution-ready prompt with the user request appended under ## User Request.

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	Default
`prompt`	Yes	The concrete task Oi should append under ## User Request.
`contextId`	No	Optional raw Context selector. Omit it to let Oi route implicitly.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`usage`	No
`status`	No
`content`	No
`guardrail`	No
`requestId`	No
`threshold`	No
`continuation`	No
`executionPlan`	No
`estimatedTokens`	No
`firstAnswerQuality`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and thus provide no safety signal, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns an execution-ready prompt with the request appended under ## User Request, and details plan/billing behavior including doing the available portion, stating what is blocked, and including the billing link. This goes well beyond the schema and annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The tool's purpose and key routing rules are front-loaded in the first lines, and the selector guidance is dense but necessary. However, the Plan and Billing section includes exact numeric limits and a billing URL that are not needed for selecting or invoking the tool, making the description longer than strictly necessary.

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?

For a tool with complex selector syntax and several sibling use tools, the description covers the main edge cases: multi-context, version pins, reserved selectors, implicit routing, and workflows as an alternative. It even describes the return format and plan-related behavior, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds critical selector syntax: raw selectors passed unchanged, + multi-context selectors up to 3, @2/@v2 version pins, and a concrete example. It also warns to strip reserved selectors (ctx/context/contexts) and never treat a missing list preview as absent, materially improving parameter understanding.

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 'Use Oi Contexts for a concrete task' and provides concrete request examples, clearly identifying the tool as the primary Context execution path. It also distinguishes itself from Workflow routing by reserving workflow/wf selectors for the Workflow path, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like oi.workflows.use.

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 states this is the primary tool for named request patterns and instructs the agent to strip reserved Context selectors while routing workflow selectors to the Workflow path. It also tells the agent not to list contexts first and explains that omitting contextId triggers implicit routing, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use boundaries clear.

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.

Use Context

Plan and Billing

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources