ContextForge MCP

memory_link_project

Idempotent

Link the current directory to a ContextForge project so queries only search that project's spaces; creates a .contextforge file for automatic filtering.

Instructions

Link the current directory to a ContextForge project. When linked, all queries will be automatically filtered to only search within that project's spaces. This creates a .contextforge file in the current directory.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "memory_link_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`create_new`	No	If true and project_name is provided, creates a new project with that name instead of linking to an existing one (default: false)
`project_name`	No	Name of the project to link. If not provided, shows available projects to choose from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent, not read-only, not destructive. The description adds the side effect of creating a .contextforge file, which is valuable context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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: first sentence states purpose and effect, second states side effect. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no extraneous words.

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's low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, effect, and side effect. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., project existence unless create_new), but overall 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 description does not need to add much. It echoes the schema's description for project_name (showing available projects if not provided) but does not add new semantics or formatting details.

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 links the current directory to a ContextForge project and specifies the effect (queries filtered to project spaces). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_unlink_project by describing the link action.

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 explains when to use (to enable project-specific query filtering) and provides context about project selection behavior via the 'project_name' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

Deploy Server