Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-context-router

agent-context-router

by dakotafabro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Load Module

load_module

Loads a policy module’s full text by ID before the work its trigger names, enabling on-demand instructions from linked repos while keeping AGENTS.md slim.

Instructions

Load a policy module's full text. Call before the work its trigger names.

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": "load_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe module id from the AGENTS.md module list or list_modules (e.g. "device-testing").

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Load ... full text' implies a read-only retrieval with no mutation, but it says nothing about module size, cost, or whether repeated loads are cheap. The output schema covers the return value.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, most needs are met. The remaining gap is the undefined 'trigger' concept, which the agent cannot resolve from the description alone.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already explains the id source and gives an example value. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what is structured, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource plus the return shape: 'Load a policy module's full text.' That distinguishes it from list_modules (which enumerates) clearly enough, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Call before the work its trigger names' gives a sequencing rule, but 'trigger' is undefined and there is no mention of when not to call it or why search_context would be the alternative. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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