Skip to main content
Glama

chat

Conduct multi-turn conversations with an AI assistant using project context and file references for code review and analysis.

Instructions

General chat with AI assistant. Supports multi-turn conversations with project context and file inclusion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesStep name (e.g., 'Initial Analysis', 'Security Review')
contentYesYour question to the AI Assistant. Provide detailed context: your goal, what you've tried, what worked, any specific challenges. IMPORTANT: Always include paths to relevant files in `relevant_files` - do NOT skip this step.
step_numberYesCurrent step
next_actionYesRecommended next action: 'continue' to proceed, 'stop' to end
base_pathYesAbsolute path to project root to id the project and load project files
thread_idNoThread ID to continue previous conversation and preserve context. WHEN TO USE: - None/omit: Starting a brand new review or chat session (step_number=1) - Provide thread_id: Continuing a multi-step workflow from a previous response (step_number>1) The thread_id is returned in every response - save it and reuse it for follow-up steps.
relevant_filesNoAbsolute paths of ALL files relevant to this question (up to 100 files). CRITICAL: For project-level questions (features, architecture, design), you MUST include project documentation (README.md, docs/, architecture diagrams). For code-specific questions, include the implementation files, related modules, tests, and configs. Example 1: 'What feature should we build?' → Include README.md, src/server.py, config/*.*, tests/. Example 2: 'Review this function' → Include the file with the function, related modules, tests, and documentation.
modelNoLLM Model name to use (default: gpt-4)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions multi-turn conversation support and file inclusion but omits important details such as whether the tool modifies state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how conversation history is managed. The agent may not know that it can safely invoke this tool without side effects.

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 brief at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids verbosity but could include more useful information (e.g., tip on when to use) without becoming too long. It is appropriately sized for a simple chat tool.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the multi-turn workflow, how to start vs. continue a conversation, or what the output contains. The schema descriptions partly compensate, but the description should provide higher-level guidance.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by framing parameters in terms of 'project context' and 'file inclusion,' but the schema already covers this in detail. There is no significant additional semantic guidance.

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 'General chat with AI assistant' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It further specifies multi-turn conversations and project context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like codereview and compare. However, it could be more explicit about the scope of the chat (e.g., programming assistance vs. general Q&A).

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 alternatives. Sibling tool names are given but without any context or comparison. The description does not mention when not to use chat or suggest other tools for specific tasks.

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/religa/multi_mcp'

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