Get scored context injections for tasks to receive actionable directives and considerations, filtered by scope and token budget.
Get a scored context injection for a task — returns directives and considerations within token budget
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The task description to inject context for | |
| scope | No | Scope filter for engram selection | |
| budget | No | Token budget for injection (default 2000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by noting output includes 'directives and considerations' and respects 'token budget'. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower; this context is helpful.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and constraints without any superfluous information. Every word 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?
The description explains the tool's purpose but lacks detail about return values (no output schema). Terms like 'scored context injection' and 'directives and considerations' remain vague, leaving room for ambiguity about what exactly is returned.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond the general mention of token budget, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool gets a scored context injection for a task with token budget constraints. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'plur_inject_hybrid' tool, though the title hints at BM25 method.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plur_inject_hybrid, plur_recall, or others. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.