Skip to main content
Glama
IEZhu

Agents-Core

by IEZhu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Load a persona

get_agent_context

Retrieve a selected agent's persona and instructions to activate its role. Use force_reload to restore lost instructions or refresh skills.

Instructions

Load an explicitly chosen agent or a ROUTE_REQUIRED selection.
Pass protocol_version=2 and current_persona. The same active agent
returns NO_CHANGE without enrichment. Use force_reload=True to restore lost
instructions; use refresh_persona_context to refresh the same role's skills.
SUCCESS contains separate blocks and a descriptor; apply only when its
replaces_activation_id matches your current activation. Preserve the dialogue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe user request the role is loaded for.
reasoningNoWhy this agent was chosen.Selected by calling LLM
agent_nameYesCanonical name of the agent to load.
chat_historyNoOptional relevant earlier conversation facts, as a JSON array of strings.
force_reloadNoTrue to restore lost instructions of the same agent.
current_personaNoThe `persona` object of the last SUCCESS/NO_CHANGE, copied verbatim; omit or null on first activation. All 7 keys: agent, activation_id, bundle_revision (64 hex characters), scope, skills_loaded, implants_loaded, rules_loaded.
protocol_versionNoPersona protocol version; always 2.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv26.10.14+1807

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already signal a stateful activation, and the description reinforces this by disclosing the NO_CHANGE path, the force_reload recovery path, and the replaces_activation_id guard for applying a returned descriptor. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though auth/permission requirements and side effects on the prior persona are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered protocol rules in short sentences with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon (ROUTE_REQUIRED, NO_CHANGE, replaces_activation_id) that is not defined, but every sentence carries operational weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, yet the description still covers the SUCCESS/descriptor application rule and NO_CHANGE semantics. For a 7-parameter, nested-object activation tool it is nearly complete, missing only failure/error handling and permission context.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, including current_persona's verbatim-copy requirement and force_reload. The description restates protocol_version=2 and current_persona rather than adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (load an agent/persona) and names the trigger condition (explicitly chosen agent or ROUTE_REQUIRED selection). It also distinguishes itself from refresh_persona_context, which handles refreshing the same role's skills. It does not, however, differentiate itself from route_and_load or get_subagent_context in the sibling set, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: pass protocol_version=2 and current_persona, expect NO_CHANGE for the same active agent, use force_reload=True to restore lost instructions, and route to refresh_persona_context for skill refresh. This is clear context with one explicit alternative, but it stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus route_and_load.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools