context-crystal

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

crystal_hydrate

Hydrate a context beam from a stored crystal, using tail limits, from/to slices, depth, or summary-only output to shape the retrieved context.

Instructions

Hydrate context beam from a crystal with selective shaping (tail, slice range from/to, depth, or summary only).

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": {
      "crystal_id": "<crystal_id>"
    },
    "name": "crystal_hydrate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Ending anchor or node ID/prefix for transition slice
`all`	No	Cast full lineage beam without tail truncation (default: false)
`from`	No	Starting anchor or node ID/prefix for transition slice
`tail`	No	Number of recent transitions to include in slice
`depth`	No	Maximum traversal depth (default: 10, alias for tail)
`crystal_id`	Yes	Target crystal identifier
`summary_only`	No	Exclude DAG transitions and hydrate living state summary only (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0Oct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / all

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cast full lineage beam without tail truncation (default: false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether hydration is read-only or mutates state, what permissions are required, how errors are surfaced, or what the return value looks like. The mention of summary_only and all provides some context about output shaping, but most behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the shaping options grouped in a parenthetical. It is dense but well structured, though the domain jargon reduces immediate readability.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain behavior and expected results. It covers the main operation and shaping modes but leaves out side effects, permissions, return format, and how all interacts with the other slice controls.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the tail, from/to slice, depth, and summary-only modes, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for all, crystal_id, or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: hydrating a context beam from a crystal. It also names the shaping modes, giving the agent a clear sense of what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings such as crystal_slice_fork or crystal_search.

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?

It explains the available shaping options but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of crystal_search, crystal_triage, crystal_slice_fork, or other sibling tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions to help the agent choose correctly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.