Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Loom

Loom

by MlkBlk-IT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Ctx Profile

ctx_profile
Idempotent

Set the compression profile for Loom context storage to balance zero-loss invariants against opt-in lossy summarization, choosing strict, balanced, or aggressive modes.

Instructions

Set the compression profile.

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": "ctx_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo"strict" (default, zero loss, move-only), "balanced", or "aggressive" (aggressive enables lossy summarization — opt-in, always reported).strict

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not obliged to restate mutability. However, the description adds nothing about what the setting actually changes: whether the profile persists across sessions, whether it applies retroactively to already-stored data, or how the choice is reported back afterwards. For a stateful configuration tool, that is the key missing behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially nothing to front-load. A single clause is an appropriate opening but should have been followed by a sentence on scope and effect.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is the context an agent cannot get elsewhere: whether the profile is global or session-scoped and when it takes effect. For a tool that silently changes how all subsequent data is compressed, this gap is material.

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% and the single `mode` parameter carries its own enum semantics, including the warning that "aggressive" enables lossy summarization. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The sentence gives a verb ("Set") and an object ("the compression profile"), so the general action is inferable, but it never defines what a "compression profile" is or what it affects. It also offers no differentiation from the many ctx_* siblings (ctx_store, ctx_vacuum, ctx_stats), so an agent must guess that this is a configuration knob for subsequent storage rather than an operation on stored data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this at all — no mention of whether it must precede ctx_store calls, whether it is per-session or global, or what the alternative is if the agent wants different behavior per call. The only usage-relevant nuance ("aggressive" is lossy and opt-in) lives in the schema, not the description.

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