MCP Context Provider
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of context or instinct management, but 'list_available_contexts' and 'get_tool_context' both involve contexts, and 'apply_auto_corrections' and 'build_injection' both produce text modifications, creating minor potential for confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names use snake_case and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., approve_instinct, list_instincts), making them predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5With 10 tools covering context retrieval, instinct lifecycle, and corrections, the set is well-scoped for its purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5Core workflows are covered, but there is no tool to update an instinct's details (e.g., change description) beyond recording outcomes and approval, leaving a minor gap.
Average 3.4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the high-level purpose. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what happens on failure, or any side effects like modifying underlying data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, concise but lacking detail. It could be expanded while remaining efficient, e.g., by explaining the correction process or output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should describe return values, but it does not. The tool has two required string parameters, and the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent on how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds 'from matching contexts' which loosely ties to the tool_name parameter, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool applies auto-correction patterns from matching contexts to text, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_syntax_rules' or 'list_available_contexts' by focusing on application rather than retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'build_injection' or 'approve_instinct'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context-matching steps, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description needs to disclose behavior. It only states what it gets, not side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or return format. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a single sentence of 7 words that is front-loaded and to the point. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description fails to explain what 'syntax-specific rules' means or the structure of the response. Inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'tool name or category', hence no additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves 'syntax-specific rules for a tool category', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tool_context', making it slightly generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states what it does without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or output format. For a build operation, more transparency needed (e.g., whether it modifies state).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, efficiently communicates the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While simple, description lacks explanation of what an injection payload is, and no mention of output format or return value, leaving gaps for unfamiliar users.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions; description adds marginal context by explaining the parameters are used to generate a payload with contexts and instincts, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'Build' and the resource 'complete injection payload', specifying it combines contexts and instincts for a tool/input combination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_instincts or get_tool_context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; does not mention prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a read operation and mentions returning confidence scores, but lacks details on authentication, side effects, or behavior when no instincts are loaded. Without annotations, more info would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it could briefly mention the output structure without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description is adequate but does not specify if the list includes identifiers or if it is sorted/paginated. It mentions confidence scores but not other potential fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond what is evident from the schema, which is fine but not additive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists loaded instincts with confidence scores, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like approve_instinct or reject_instinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before approving/rejecting an instinct. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'record an outcome' but does not mention side effects (e.g., updating confidence via delta), permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. The schema shows delta but description omits that detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, expected behavior on delta, or how this tool relates to siblings like approve_instinct. Essential context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'record' and the resource 'outcome for an instinct' and specifies the types (positive, negative, neutral). It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_instinct or reject_instinct, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for recording outcomes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like approve_instinct, reject_instinct, or store_instinct. No exclusions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it sets 'approved_by' to human, indicating a mutation. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the instinct must be in a specific state. A higher score would require more detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, making it concise and easy to read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It fails to mention the return value or confirmation of success, and does not address idempotency or preconditions. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'id' ('Instinct ID to approve'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Approve', the resource 'instinct', and the specific effect 'sets approved_by to human'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'reject_instinct' and 'list_instincts'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for approving an instinct, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The sibling tools suggest it is for approval, but explicit context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the main effect (reject/deactivate and lower confidence) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility, which are important for a mutation tool without annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete in stating the action, but could benefit from mentioning return values or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds behavioral context (lowering confidence) but does not enhance the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'reject' and 'deactivate' identifying the tool's action on an 'instinct', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'approve_instinct'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., approve_instinct, record_outcome). It does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'inactive with auto approval' but this is ambiguous and does not clarify side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicate IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return value or behavior on conflicts. The auto approval note is confusing and incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the well-documented parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Store a new instinct candidate' using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like approve_instinct and reject_instinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It indicates when to use this tool versus approve_instinct by noting 'use approve_instinct for human approval', providing clear context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or loading state, but for a simple list tool, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous information. It is highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function. It mentions what is listed (categories and descriptions), but lacks details about output format or error conditions. Still, it is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are defined, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information because none are needed. It correctly implies no input is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (loaded context categories), with a mention of also returning descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_tool_context, which likely retrieves context for a specific tool. However, it could be more precise about what 'loaded' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_tool_context, list_instincts). The description gives no context about typical use cases or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description discloses that the tool returns 'rules, syntax, preferences' but does not mention safety (e.g., read-only) or any side effects. Minimal but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, concise sentence with no extraneous words, effectively front-loading the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the tool's return content, though it could hint at the output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not add extra meaning to the 'tool_name' parameter beyond the schema's existing example and description, meeting the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete context') and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_syntax_rules' by mentioning 'rules, syntax, preferences' as a comprehensive set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_syntax_rules' or 'list_available_contexts', though the word 'complete' implies it is the comprehensive version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/doobidoo/MCP-Context-Provider'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server