Redacted Context MCP

by zoltan0803

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: local file operations (list, read, search, stat, tree, bundle, audit, doctor, refresh) and GitHub operations (list issues, read issue, repos, search issues). No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the redctx_ prefix, e.g., redctx_list, redctx_read, redctx_github_list_issues. The convention is uniform across local and GitHub subcommands.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools cover two distinct subdomains (local redacted file management and GitHub issue retrieval) without being excessive. Each tool earns its place, providing a balanced set for the server's purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations: browse, read, search, audit, bundle, and GitHub issue listing/search. Missing write operations (e.g., create/edit issues) are minor given the read-focused nature, but a configuration tool for repo aliases would add completeness.
Average 3.5/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds only the term 'redacted,' which is vague and not elaborated. No additional behavioral traits or limitations are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices completeness. It is not verbose, but it also fails to provide necessary context. Adequate for a simple tool, but barely.
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?
With 4 parameters, an output schema, and siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the 'redacted' nature, filtering options, or return format. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 25% (only repo_alias described). The description hints at repo_alias but provides no meaning for limit, state, or labels. The schema defaults and enums exist, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 clearly states it lists redacted GitHub issues from a configured repo alias, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read (single issue) and search (query-based). However, it does not explicitly differentiate, so it's not perfect.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention scope, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that the query is evaluated against redacted output, which is a behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits or return format, but given annotations, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and front-loaded purpose. However, it omits essential parameter and usage information, making it efficient but incomplete. Every sentence earns its place, but more value could be added.
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 7 parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or provide context for complex searches. The output schema may help, but the description itself lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14% (only 'paths' has a description). The description does not explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. With 7 parameters, the agent lacks guidance on parameter usage, reducing effectiveness.
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 clearly states the tool searches redacted text and specifies that the query is evaluated against redacted output. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from unrelated tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_tree, which may have similar purposes.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparisons with sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_audit. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description claims 'Refresh' which implies mutation of the in-memory index, yet annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a clear contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations already declare. The tool's side effects are not disclosed, and the refresh operation's impact on other tools is unknown.
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?
Single sentence with no filler words. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the action. Efficient and direct.
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?
Despite having no parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'refresh' means operationally (e.g., reload from disk vs. reindex), whether it affects other tools, or what the output schema provides. The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
Description clearly states the tool refreshes an in-memory index for the configured local root. It uses a specific verb ('Refresh') and resource ('in-memory opaque path index'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like redctx_read or redctx_search, though the maintenance nature is implied.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. Sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_doctor serve different purposes, but the description offers no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it concatenates files for compact context, which is useful, but does not disclose important behaviors such as how files are selected (glob vs paths), truncation limits, or what happens if limits are exceeded. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter or usage details without losing conciseness, but as is, it earns a high score for structure.
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 5 parameters, an output schema, and a specific use case (bundling files for context), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, the selection logic (glob vs paths), or default behaviors. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The parameters 'glob', 'paths', 'max_files', 'max_total_chars', and 'max_chars_per_file' are not described in the description or via context signals, leaving the agent to guess their semantics. The description must compensate for low schema coverage but fails to do so.
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 verb 'concatenate' and resource 'redacted text files', and adds the purpose 'for compact agent context'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'redctx_read' (individual file reading) and 'redctx_search' (searching), making it easy for an agent to understand when to use it.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context on trade-offs or when to prefer this over other tools like redctx_read or redctx_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'redacted', hinting at data security, but does not elaborate on auth, rate limits, or side effects. Value beyond annotations is moderate.
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 9-word sentence with no filler. Efficient but could include parameter hints without becoming verbose. Still, it is appropriately front-loaded.
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 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the description omits essential configuration details (e.g., comments, limits). Output schema exists but return values are not described. The tool is simple but parameter guidance is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only repo_alias described). The tool description mentions only 'repo alias' and 'issue number', leaving comments, max_comments, max_body_chars unexplained. Description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 verb 'Read', the resource 'one redacted GitHub issue', and the distinguishing qualifier 'by configured repo alias and issue number'. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like redctx_github_list_issues and redctx_github_search_issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (specific issue by alias and number) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list or search tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavioral detail of returning 'redacted summaries,' which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or what redaction entails.
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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though additional guidance could be added without significant bloat.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context on how to effectively use the search (e.g., query syntax, what 'redacted summaries' contain). Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters), the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), only the 'repo_alias' parameter has a description. The main description mentions 'configured repo alias' but provides no details on 'query', 'limit', or 'state' parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.
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 verb 'Search' on the resource 'GitHub issues' with additional context about using a configured repo alias and returning redacted summaries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'redctx_github_list_issues' (listing without search) and 'redctx_github_read_issue' (reading a single issue).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for query-based searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'redctx_github_list_issues' or 'redctx_github_read_issue'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tree is 'redacted' with 'opaque @p_<id> path references', which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but could benefit from slight expansion on the tree depth or reference format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and key behavioral aspects, but missing usage guidelines and parameter details reduce completeness for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (path has description, max_depth does not). The tool description does not explain parameter usage or add meaning beyond the schema, leaving max_depth ambiguous in its effect.
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 tool shows a redacted file tree with opaque @p_<id> references, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like redctx_list and redctx_read that list files or read contents. The verb 'Show' and resource 'redacted file tree' are specific.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as redctx_list or redctx_stat. It lacks context about when not to use it or what distinguishes it further.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral detail that paths are presented as opaque @p_<id> references. This provides beyond-annotation context without contradicting it.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No fluff, every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple list operation and presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main point. However, it omits behavior of max_depth and recursive, which are not explained anywhere, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of how to use these parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (path has description). The description mentions @p_<id> references which relates to the path parameter but adds nothing for max_depth or recursive. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving two parameters undocumented.
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 tool lists redacted files/directories and introduces the key behavior of opaque @p_<id> path references. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like redctx_read or redctx_tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The mention of opaque path references hints at a use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like redctx_tree or redctx_stat.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds context beyond annotations: it reads 'redacted' text files and accepts two reference types. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so no contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff, essential information front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. But with 5 parameters and low description coverage, the description is incomplete – missing parameter semantics for most parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 20%. Description only explains path parameter, ignoring end_line, max_chars, start_line, line_numbers. Does not compensate for low coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Read', resource 'redacted text file', and specifies two referencing methods (path or @p_<id>). Distinguishes from siblings like redctx_list, redctx_search, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Implied by purpose but no when-not or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), but the description adds value by specifying that the tool does not print sensitive terms and performs local checks, which are not captured in annotations.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficiently complete for this simple tool, though including parameter details would improve it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the 'format' parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The schema provides enum and default, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 verb ('run'), the resource ('local redaction and containment checks'), and a key constraint ('without printing sensitive terms'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like redctx_list or redctx_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for safe checks without exposing sensitive terms, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redctx_search or redctx_read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting that metadata is 'redacted', implying some content may be hidden. This goes beyond what annotations provide, but does not detail other behaviors like rate limits or error conditions.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose and uses technical terms appropriately. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has a simple interface (1 parameter) and an output schema (not shown). The description suffices for normal usage, but could mention what metadata fields are returned or the output format. However, given the output schema likely covers return values, the description is reasonably complete.
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 description explains that the 'path' parameter can accept either a file path or an opaque @p_<id> reference. This adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, which has 0% coverage. The description compensates for the schema's lack of parameter description.
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 tool shows redacted metadata for a path or opaque reference. The verb 'show' and resource 'metadata' are specific, and the mention of both path and opaque reference distinguishes it from siblings like redctx_read (content) and redctx_list (listing).
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or refer to other tools. The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds value by stating it does not print sensitive terms, a behavioral trait beyond annotations. This clarifies what the output excludes, aiding agent decision-making.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note without any wasted words.
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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main function and a safety aspect, requiring no additional context for correct invocation.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies, and the description does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as 'redaction setup counts'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like redctx_list (which likely lists redactions) and redctx_read (which reads details), focusing on counts without sensitive terms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'without printing sensitive terms', implying safe usage for obtaining counts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like redctx_audit or redctx_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists configured aliases and suggests neutral names, which is helpful but not extensive. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. The naming guideline adds context that the schema cannot capture.
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?
With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema implies.
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 tool lists configured GitHub repo aliases, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redctx_github_list_issues by focusing on aliases. The naming guideline adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing aliases and provides a naming convention, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names partially compensates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![redacted-context-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zoltan0803/redacted-context-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zoltan0803/redacted-context-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![redacted-context-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zoltan0803/redacted-context-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zoltan0803/redacted-context-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/zoltan0803/redacted-context-mcp'

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