ctx

search_context

Search a GitHub repository and return only the passages that match a query — each with its file path, line number and a relevance score. Far more token-efficient than pack_repo when you need a specific detail (e.g. "where is auth handled?").

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Optional branch, tag or commit SHA (defaults to the default branch).
`repo`	Yes	A GitHub repo as "owner/repo" or a github.com URL.
`query`	Yes	Space-separated search terms; matching is case-insensitive.
`exclude`	No	Optional glob patterns (support *, , ?).
`include`	No	Optional glob patterns (support *, , ?).
`max_matches`	No	Max passages to return (1–50, default 5).
`context_chars`	No	Per-passage character budget (80–4000, default 500).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by explaining that only matching passages are returned, with specific metadata (file path, line number, relevance score), and that it is token-efficient. This goes beyond a bare name and offers useful behavioral context, though it doesn't mention permissions or potential side effects (which are likely nonexistent).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and includes a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the overall purpose and return shape. It doesn't explain all parameter interactions, but the schema descriptions handle those. It lacks details on error conditions or edge cases, but for typical use it is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The term 'query' is referenced, but not elaborated beyond the schema's own description.

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 tool's verb plus resource: 'Search a GitHub repository and return only the passages that match a query.' It specifies the output format (file path, line number, relevance score), and differentiates itself from the sibling tool pack_repo by highlighting token efficiency for targeted searches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over pack_repo ('when you need a specific detail'), and contrasts it with the more heavy-weight pack_repo. It doesn't explicitly mention other siblings like search_docs, but the stated use case is clear 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 ctx tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.