Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a project's saved knowledge snapshot—tech stack, known issues, notes, and collaboration history—so you can recall prior context before starting work.

Instructions

读取特定项目的知识快照(项目级,只含该项目的历史)。 / Read the knowledge snapshot for a specific project, containing only that project's history.

用途:想了解某个项目之前的技术栈、已知问题、协作次数时调用。
Purpose: Call when you need a project's previous tech stack, known issues, notes, or collaboration history.

注意:如果想获取用户级完整身份上下文,用 get_user_context;如果想写入项目快照,用 save_project_snapshot。
Note: Use get_user_context for full user-level context; use save_project_snapshot to write a project snapshot.

Args:
    project_folder: 项目文件夹路径。 / Project folder path.

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": {
      "project_folder": "<project_folder>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_folderYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv4.6.2
  2. Removedv4.6.1
  3. Addedv3.29.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is scoped to a single project's history rather than a merged view. It does not say what happens when no snapshot exists for the folder (empty result vs. error), which is the one behavior an agent might need to branch on.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then alternatives — a good ordering. The cost is full bilingual duplication of every sentence, which roughly doubles length without adding information for a single-language reader, though it does serve mixed-language agents.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the essentials are present: purpose, trigger conditions, sibling routing, and a meaningful scope constraint, with an output schema available to explain return values. The only gap is the empty/missing-snapshot case, which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the schema itself says only 'string'. The description restates it as 'Project folder path', which confirms the parameter is a filesystem folder but gives no format, whether it is absolute or relative, or how to match an existing project name. Partial compensation for a total coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read the knowledge snapshot for a specific project') and immediately bounds scope ('containing only that project's history'), which cleanly separates it from the user-level sibling. An agent can distinguish it from get_user_context and get_relevant_knowledge without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations ('previous tech stack, known issues, notes, or collaboration history') and routes the agent elsewhere for the two adjacent needs: get_user_context for user-level identity and save_project_snapshot for writing. This covers both the read-alternative and the write-alternative, leaving nothing to inference.

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