Skip to main content
Glama

Get setup kit

get_setup_kit

Return the optional setup kit for agents that run on the user's own machine (Claude Code, Cursor). The kit contains four hooks (recall at session start, recall on each prompt, sync of session recaps, and the inbox of messages from other agents), the settings.json block, a usage policy, and an idempotent bash script that installs them.

With the hooks installed, memory is recalled and stored automatically.
Without them, NEXUS only has what the agent stores through its tools.
Calling this tool only returns the kit; nothing is installed until the
script is run. Running it writes the hooks and the policy file on the
user's machine, declares the hooks in the client's settings, and loads
the policy into the agent's instructions (a line in CLAUDE.md for Claude
Code, a .cursor/rules file for Cursor), so installing is the user's
decision. It does not apply to chat clients (Claude web or desktop,
ChatGPT).

Side effect: on an OAuth connection, the call issues the hooks credential
and embeds it in the script. This works once, because a secret that was
already shown is not returned again. On a plain `nxa_` token connection it
does not issue a credential, and an account owner must issue one. `steps`
says which case applies.

Args:
    formato: "script" (default) for the bash installer plus steps, or "files" for the same files as text, for clients without bash. It is ignored for Cursor.
    client: "claude-code" (default) or "cursor". Cursor gets a session-start hook and a turn-recap hook. It has no per-prompt recall, because Cursor's beforeSubmitPrompt cannot inject context.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clientNoclaude-code
formatoNoscript

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses a real side effect: on OAuth connections the call issues a hooks credential embedded in the script, and that credential cannot be shown again. It also explains the plain token case, the `steps` indicator, and exactly what running the installer would do. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context annotations do not cover.

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 description is long but front-loads the purpose and then adds necessary detail about side effects and client differences. Some sentences could be tightened, but the density is justified by the complexity of the installer and credential behavior.

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?

There is no output schema and only two parameters, but the description covers the kit contents, installation behavior, credential side effect, client-specific differences, and the `steps` output. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to interpret the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The Args section explains `formato` values (`script` vs `files`), defaults, and the Cursor caveat, plus `client` values and the behavioral difference for Cursor's hook set. This fully documents both parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the setup kit for local agents, and it enumerates exactly what the kit contains. It also scopes the tool by naming the applicable clients and excluding chat clients, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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 when the kit applies (Claude Code and Cursor agents on the user's own machine) and when it does not (chat clients such as Claude web, desktop, or ChatGPT). It also clarifies that calling only returns the kit and that installation is the user's decision, which is exactly the guidance needed before invoking it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources