Skip to main content
Glama

get_context

Returns a triage overview for files, modules, or symbols: summaries, signatures, hotspot/fix-history cues, and linked decisions—so you can assess targets without reading source bytes.

Instructions

Triage card for files / modules / symbols — relationships, not source bytes.

Returns title, summary, signatures with line numbers, hotspot bit, and
decision_record titles. fix_history appears only on files with counted bug
fixes (count, age, bug_magnet); hotspot is churn. Either one is a cue to
call get_risk. episodes counts the dated records bound to a target — what
happened here and why — and appears only when there is at least one;
get_why serves the bodies. A symbol target is counted as its file, and a
module aggregates everything beneath it.
Batch targets in one call. No source bytes by default: pass
include=["skeleton"] for the whole file body-elided and line-verified in
ONE call, or Read it. Do not call get_symbol per signature.

Default responses fit 24,000 serialized chars; nonempty ``include`` uses
32,000. Reductions carry counts and ``_meta.omitted`` recovery refs;
``_meta.recovery_unavailable`` names a storage failure.
Include-gated blocks are projections, not omissions.

Args:
    targets: file paths, module paths, or "path::Symbol" ids.
    include: opt-in blocks: full_doc | ownership | last_change | callers
        | callees | metrics | community | decisions | skeleton | health.
        An unrecognised key is named in ignored_arguments.
    compact: default True; False adds structure+imports+docstrings.
    repo: usually omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNo
compactNo
includeNo
targetsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Install Server

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it thoroughly. It discloses conditional fields (fix_history only on counted fixes, episodes only when records exist), the default no-source-bytes behavior, size limits, reduction counts with _meta.omitted recovery refs, _meta.recovery_unavailable storage failure, and explicitly clarifies that include-gated blocks are projections, not omissions.

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?

Although long, the description is dense with high-value information and well-structured: a headline, a returns paragraph, conditional behavior, batching advice, size limits, error signaling, and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the core scoping statement is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is complex with 4 parameters and no annotation support, yet the description covers target formats, include-block semantics, conditional fields, batching, output sizing, reduction recovery, and error indications. Since an output schema exists, returning to explain shell return values is unnecessary; nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It explains targets as file paths, module paths, or "path::Symbol" ids; enumerates all include block keys; defines compact's default and its effect; and clarifies repo is usually omitted. Every parameter receives meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Triage card for files / modules / symbols — relationships, not source bytes." It clearly enumerates what is returned (title, summary, signatures, hotspot bit, decision_record titles) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_symbol, get_risk, and get_why without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: "Either one is a cue to call get_risk," "get_why serves the bodies," and "Do not call get_symbol per signature." It also advises batching targets and using one call with include=["skeleton"] instead of reading files separately, covering both when and when-not to use alternatives.

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

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/repowise-dev/repowise'

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