Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_project_context

Read-only

Load a client project's brand kit, context records and settings before writing or reviewing content, optionally filtered by content type.

Instructions

Return a client project's published Brand Kit (brand voice, audience, point of view, CTA, writing rules), its published Context records (company, offerings, audience, competitors, strategy, execution, engagement, each with its sources) and its project settings.

Use when writing or reviewing content for a client project: posts, pages, emails, briefs, outlines,
audits with recommendations. It is what the consultant has already written down for this client.

With `content_type` (a name such as "Blog post", or its id) the result also carries that type's rules
and CTA; without it, the global rules and `available_content_types`. `brand_kit.missing` lists fields
not written yet, `context_records.missing` the Context records not published yet, and `guidance` explains
how the parts relate. Long record bodies are shortened to keep the response bounded (`body_status`).

Args:
    project_id: The project to load (from list_projects()).
    content_type: Optional content type name or id (`cty_…`) from available_content_types.
    include_samples: Also return the writing samples' full text (larger). Default: titles, urls and outlines only.
    context_groups: Optional Context groups to include (company, offerings, audience, competitors, strategy,
        execution, engagement). Default: all.

[Provider: Unilytics]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
content_typeNo
context_groupsNo
include_samplesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: missing-field lists (brand_kit.missing, context_records.missing), a guidance field explaining how parts relate, and explicit truncation of long record bodies with body_status to keep the response bounded. It doesn't discuss rate limits or permissions, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

The response shape is front-loaded in sentence one and the Args block is scannable. There is mild redundancy — content_type's effect is explained in prose and again in Args — but nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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 must describe returns, and it does so at the right granularity: the three payload sections, conditional content-type rules vs. available_content_types, the missing lists, guidance, and body_status truncation. An agent can predict the response shape and call the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: project_id's origin, content_type as a name or `cty_…` id sourced from available_content_types, include_samples' default and size cost, and the enumerated context_groups values. Each parameter gains meaning beyond its bare schema type.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ("Return") and enumerates the exact resources returned: the published Brand Kit, published Context records with sources, and project settings. That is enough to separate it from siblings like get_project_config or get_project_file 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear use case ("when writing or reviewing content for a client project: posts, pages, emails, briefs, outlines, audits") and points to list_projects() as the source of project_id. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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