Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Context Cockpit

Context Cockpit

by ritaprieto900
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cockpit_get_overview

Retrieve a full project snapshot with active milestone, git status, and recent architecture decisions to coordinate AI agents and developers.

Instructions

Returns the full project overview, active milestone, git status, and recent ADRs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cockpit_get_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content well, which implies a read-only, aggregate query, but it never explicitly states the operation is non-mutating, nor does it mention side effects, caching, or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the contents. No filler, though a short 'use this first for project state' clause would have earned more.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and with zero parameters the call surface is trivial. The description is sufficient for correct invocation, only lacking explicit read-only/usage framing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly describes a no-argument getter.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('project overview'), and enumerates the payload contents (active milestone, git status, recent ADRs). It is clear what the tool fetches, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cockpit_get_ready_tasks.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. An agent must infer from the name that this is the entry-point summary call.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools