AgentDrive MCP Server

drive_context

Retrieve relevant artifacts from prior agent sessions to ground your current task. Uses semantic relevance and recency to auto-pull context, replacing manual copy-paste.

Instructions

Auto-pull the most relevant artifacts from prior agent sessions for the task you are about to do. Combines semantic relevance with recency. Call this at the START of any non-trivial task to ground the agent in prior context — replaces manual copy-paste of artifacts between sessions.

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "drive_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	What you are about to do — used to rank prior artifacts by relevance
`limit`	No	Max artifacts to return (default 5, max 20)
`workspace_id`	No	Scope to a single workspace; omit for org-wide context

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes retrieval behavior but doesn't explicitly state non-destructive nature or output format. Leaves ambiguity about side effects and return structure.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and mechanism, second gives usage advice. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter roles. Lacks explicit output description but is adequate for typical use.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context about relevance and recency but doesn't significantly enhance semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it auto-pulls relevant artifacts from prior sessions, combining semantic relevance and recency. It implies differentiation from siblings like drive_read or drive_search by focusing on prior context, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

Explicitly says to call at start of non-trivial tasks to ground in prior context, replacing manual copy-paste. Gives clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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