Skip to main content
Glama

prismic_get_repository_context

Retrieve repository and API metadata to identify the active Prismic repository and confirm authentication before executing content workflows.

Instructions

Get active repository context for this MCP server.

Returns repository and API base URL metadata (no secrets) so agents can identify which Prismic repository they are operating on. Recommended first call in a session to confirm repository and auth posture before running read/write workflows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The core logic function 'handle_prismic_get_repository_context' which executes the service logic.
    async def handle_prismic_get_repository_context(
        *,
        service_factory: ServiceFactory = _build_service,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Return active Prismic repository/context metadata for this MCP runtime."""
    
        async with service_factory() as service:
            context = service.get_repository_context()
    
        return {"context": context}
  • Tool registration for 'prismic_get_repository_context' using @server.tool decorator.
    @server.tool(name="prismic_get_repository_context")
    async def prismic_get_repository_context() -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Get active repository context for this MCP server.
    
        Returns repository and API base URL metadata (no secrets) so agents can
        identify which Prismic repository they are operating on.
        Recommended first call in a session to confirm repository and auth
        posture before running read/write workflows.
        """
    
        return await handle_prismic_get_repository_context()
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns metadata (not secrets), serves as a session initialization step, and helps confirm repository and auth posture. However, it lacks details on potential errors, response format, or any side effects, though these are mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second clarifies the return value, and the third provides usage guidelines. Each sentence adds clear value without any wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and what to expect, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema will handle return value details, so no additional explanation is needed.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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 specific action ('Get active repository context') and resource ('for this MCP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on documents, types, slices, etc. It explicitly mentions what is returned ('repository and API base URL metadata') and what is not ('no secrets'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Recommended first call in a session to confirm repository and auth posture before running read/write workflows.' This clearly positions it as an initialization step distinct from the operational sibling tools, with a specific rationale for its use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rahulpowar/prismic-content-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server