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

agent-context-router

by dakotafabro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Search Context

search_context

Find relevant instruction modules by describing upcoming work, even when no trigger matches. Returns matching modules from linked git repos.

Instructions

Find modules relevant to a task when no trigger obviously matches.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesA short description of the work about to happen.
top_kNoMaximum number of modules to return.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a non-destructive read, but it does not state that explicitly, nor does it explain ranking/scoring of results, behavior when nothing matches, or any cost/latency traits. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

With only 2 params, full schema coverage, and an output schema, much is already covered structurally. However, the description leaves undefined what a 'trigger' or a 'module' contextually is and how discovery should be sequenced, leaving meaningful gaps for a fallback discovery tool.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the query or top_k, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find modules relevant to a task') plus a qualifying circumstance ('when no trigger obviously matches'), which implicitly contrasts with list_modules (enumerate all) and load_module (load a specific one). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The clause 'when no trigger obviously matches' gives one positive usage condition, but it never states when NOT to use this tool or points to the alternatives (list_modules/load_module). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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