Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@contextq/mcp

@contextq/mcp

Official
by contextq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ctx_get

Retrieve a single context entry by its exact ID to read its lifecycle, quality score, validity dates, and standard fields. Use when you already know the context ID.

Instructions

Get a single context entry by its ID. Use this when you already know the exact context ID you want to read. Response includes lifecycle, atomic, quality_score, valid_from, and valid_to alongside the standard fields.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "ctx_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe context entry ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the extra return fields (lifecycle, atomic, quality_score, valid_from, valid_to), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what happens on a missing/invalid ID, permission requirements, or that this is a non-mutating read. Adequate but with real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage condition, then the return payload. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the notable return fields, and a one-param getter needs little more. The main omission is error/not-found behavior, which an agent would likely want.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description only restates "exact context ID" without adding format, type, or lookup constraints.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get a single context entry by its ID") and scopes it to a single record. It contrasts implicitly with retrieval-by-search via "single" and "exact context ID," but never names the sibling tools (ctx_search, ctx_list) it differs from.

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?

"Use this when you already know the exact context ID you want to read" gives a clear selecting condition and implies the when-not case (when you don't know the ID). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should fall back to.

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