Skip to main content
Glama

Ctx Store File

ctx_store_file
Idempotent

Reads a file from disk and stores its contents in the Loom drawer under a session for later context retrieval and search.

Instructions

Read a file from disk and store its contents in the Loom drawer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ctx_store_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesabsolute or relative file path
labelNoshort human-readable name (defaults to basename)
session_idNological session the content belongs todefault

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered externally. The description usefully adds that the operation touches the local filesystem, but says nothing about what happens when the path is missing, whether an existing stored entry is overwritten, or any size limits on the file contents.

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?

A single clause with the source-action-destination order front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present and all three parameters documented in the schema, the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool that writes into a persistent store, it omits the overwrite/idempotency semantics and missing-file behavior that an agent would want before calling it.

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%, with path, label and session_id each documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how label interacts with the default basename or how session_id scopes retrieval.

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?

The description gives a concrete verb pair and names both the source (a file on disk) and destination (the Loom drawer), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings ctx_store and ctx_store_cmd, which likely also write content into the drawer.

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 pick this over ctx_store or ctx_store_cmd, which is the most likely selection ambiguity given the sibling list. The only implied condition is that the content already exists as a file on disk.

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