get_contextReveals the current server origin, organization, actor, role, scopes, mode, and capabilities without exposing credentials. Use it to verify permissions before OTA release actions.
Show the fixed server origin, organization, actor, role, scopes, mode, and capabilities without exposing credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: the context is 'fixed' (server-bound rather than per-call) and credentials are deliberately withheld from output, which matters for an agent reasoning about what it can safely read back.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant or filler text. It ends on the security qualifier rather than burying it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it enumerates the returned fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and zero parameters, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field list describes return content rather than arguments, and adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Show') plus the exact resource ('the active OtaKit context'), with an enumeration of the fields returned (origin, organization, actor, role, scopes, mode, capabilities). This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_account_status and get_release_state, which concern different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to inspect the current session context. It names no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions, which for a no-arg introspection tool is tolerable but not helpful guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.