Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-context-cache

mcp-context-cache

by jdug-jadodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_directory_context

Recursively load and cache an entire directory's files as formatted context for AI agents, reducing multiple file reads to a single call.

Instructions

Recursively packages all files in a directory and returns them as formatted context for AI agents.

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": {
      "rootPath": "<rootPath>"
    },
    "name": "get_directory_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootPathYesRoot directory path to recursively include
configPathNoPath to contextcache.json (optional)
excludePatternsNoAdditional glob patterns to exclude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.5

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 it only mentions 'recursively packages' without details on side effects, performance limits, or whether it modifies state. It lacks transparency beyond the basic operation.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core functionality efficiently, though it could benefit from slightly more structure.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (recursive directory traversal) and the lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It doesn't explain the output format or any limitations, but it covers the basic purpose adequately.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'packages' and the resource 'all files in a directory', with the purpose of returning formatted context. It is specific and distinct from siblings by mentioning recursion and packaging.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does 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 its siblings (get_context_from_config, get_project_context) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does.

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