Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
context-keeper

context-keeper

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

mirror

Sync project memory between local and remote stores. Pull merges remote changes into local; backfill pushes local entries to remote.

Instructions

Sync entries with the remote store. op='pull' merges remote entries into local (newest wins); op='backfill' pushes all local entries to remote (upsert). No-op if remote unconfigured.

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": {
      "op": "<op>"
    },
    "name": "mirror"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYespull = remote→local merge; backfill = local→remote push.
project_dirNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 discloses that pull merges with newest-wins conflict resolution, backfill does upsert, and the tool is no-op if remote is unconfigured. It lacks details on error handling or side effects but covers core behavior well.

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?

Two concise sentences, each adding value. The first states the overall purpose, the second elaborates on the two ops and the no-op condition. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core sync behavior but lacks details on how the remote store is configured, what the return values are (no output schema), and does not address potential issues like conflicts beyond the simple newest-wins rule. It is adequate for basic usage but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (op described, project_dir not). The description adds meaning for op beyond the schema but does not address project_dir at all. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to explain the essential parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool synchronizes entries with a remote store and distinguishes two operations (pull and backfill) with precise definitions. This differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on individual entries or snapshots.

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?

The description explains when to use each op: pull for merging remote to local, backfill for pushing local to remote. It also mentions the no-op condition. However, it does not explicitly guide when not to use this tool versus alternatives like import_snapshot.

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