Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
contextium-mcp-server

contextium-mcp-server

Official
by contextium-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

auto_project_setup

Automatically creates a complete Contextium workspace—library, agents, workflow, project state—from just a project name and description.

Instructions

Autonomous one-shot project setup — creates a full Contextium workspace (library, agents, workflow, project-state.md) without asking any questions. Use when the user says "just set it up", "create a project for X", or is on mobile/voice.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "auto_project_setup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProject name
descriptionNoWhat the project is about — used to tailor agent system prompts
workspaceIdNoWorkspace ID (uses default if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses autonomous behavior ('without asking any questions') and what is created, but lacks detail on side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or idempotency.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines what the tool creates but omits return behavior, error handling, time expectations, or constraints like name uniqueness. Adequate but not fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, meeting baseline at 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'description' tailors agent prompts and 'workspaceId' defaults if omitted, exceeding bare schema info.

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 description clearly states the tool performs autonomous one-shot project setup, specifying the exact resources created (library, agents, workflow, project-state.md). This distinguishes it from siblings like manual_project_setup and create_project.

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 lists trigger phrases ('just set it up', 'create a project for X') and contexts (mobile/voice). Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but provides solid guidance.

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