Skip to main content
Glama
KasayoDotCom

Identity Forge MCP

Official

Replace a project's context

set_project_context

Save the product definition and design context for a brand project so every later proposal is grounded in it. Replaces all stored fields, so retrieve the current context first, then resend the full object.

Instructions

Store what the product is, so every later proposal is grounded in it and you never re-send a paragraph of prose. This REPLACES the whole context: nothing is merged, so any field you leave out is deleted, not kept. That is deliberate — a merging update would let you drop a surface from the list and silently keep the old one — but it means the safe way to edit is get_project_context first, then send the whole object back with your change applied. product is the only required field and must be a real sentence rather than a label; a description under 12 characters is refused, because a proposal built on one reads as grounded while being generic. Every string is bounded and an over-long field is refused by name rather than truncated, so nothing is silently cut. Requires the kits:write scope; reading needs only kits:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
avoidNoDirections already ruled out, in the user's own words. "We tried playful and customers hated it" is worth more here than any other field.
moodsNoMood ids from the discovery vocabulary; the feel being aimed at.
stackNoWhat the brand has to be implemented in. Free text, so an unrecognised stack is read by the model rather than rejected.
productYesWhat the product does, in a sentence or two. The one field a proposal cannot be specific without.
audienceNoWho uses it.
industryNoIndustry id from the discovery vocabulary.
surfacesNoThe screens the product has. This is what narrows candidates: a kit judged unfit for every surface is not a candidate. An empty list is honest and common early on.
projectIdYesOwned brand project id from list_brand_projects.
constraintsNoWhat the design must respect: an accessibility target, a parent brand, an existing component library, a locale, a regulator.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the operation replaces the entire context (omitted fields are deleted), explains the deliberate rationale, notes refusal of under-length product descriptions and over-long strings, and states authentication requirements. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 six sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds critical information: replacement semantics, rationale, safe editing workflow, validation rules, and auth. No wasted words; structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, destructive behavior, editing workflow, validation constraints, and permissions. This makes it highly complete for a complex write operation, even without describing return values.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral semantics beyond the schema: product must be a real sentence (not just a label), omitted fields are deleted, and bounded strings are refused by name rather than truncated. This enriches parameter understanding but doesn't detail every nested field since the schema already does.

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 it stores product context for later proposals and explicitly says it 'REPLACES the whole context', which distinguishes it from the read-only get_project_context and other project tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 tells users the safe way to edit: call get_project_context first, then send the whole object back with changes. It also specifies the required kits:write scope versus kits:read for reading, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KasayoDotCom/identityforge-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server