get_context_for_taskFetch active constraints and relevant decisions for a task description or file paths before starting work, so agents can apply accepted context and avoid conflicts.
Call BEFORE starting work. Returns active constraints in scope and the most relevant decisions for a task description and/or file paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| task | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| paths | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool is a retrieval returning active constraints and relevant decisions, and that it should be invoked before work begins, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, scope of 'in scope', or the limit/pagination behavior governing results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the critical timing instruction is front-loaded before the return-value clause. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description covers the core intent and call timing but leaves real gaps: the path/paths relationship, the limit cap, and what 'active constraints in scope' concretely means in the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description implies the task and file-path inputs ('task description and/or file paths') but never clarifies the path vs paths duplication, nor mentions the limit parameter or its 1–50 range. It only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: returns active constraints in scope plus the most relevant decisions for a given task/path. An agent can tell it retrieves curated context rather than merely listing constraints or searching decisions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_constraints or search_decisions, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The opening imperative 'Call BEFORE starting work' gives explicit timing guidance, which is exactly the usage context an agent needs for a pre-work context fetch. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_decisions instead), so it is clear context without routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.