Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
contextfetch-mcp

contextfetch-mcp

by lachy3433
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ContextFetch free API key

contextfetch_get_free_key

Get a free ContextFetch API key with 2,500 searches, no sign-up. Use it immediately and save it as CONTEXTFETCH_API_KEY for future use.

Instructions

Get a free ContextFetch API key with 2,500 searches (one per network, no sign-up). This session uses it right away; give it to your user so they can set CONTEXTFETCH_API_KEY to keep it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "contextfetch_get_free_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the 'one per network' rate limit and the no-sign-up flow, which explains why repeat calls may not be idempotent. It stops short of describing the returned key format or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the required post-call action; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does enough: it says what the key grants, that it is auto-applied this session, and how to persist it. Minor gaps remain about the response shape and what happens if a key already exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies and no parameter confusion is possible.

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 (get a free ContextFetch API key) plus concrete scope (2,500 searches, one per network, no sign-up). It is clearly distinct from the search/research/crawl siblings, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Implies the call is for obtaining credentials and tells the agent what to do with the result (use it this session, hand it to the user for CONTEXTFETCH_API_KEY), but never states when to call it versus checking contextfetch_balance or how to behave on repeat calls.

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