[FEATURE] Show deferred MCP tools overhead in /context command
Resolved 💬 2 comments Opened Jan 30, 2026 by dustinbyershax Closed Feb 28, 2026
Summary
The /context command doesn't show the potential overhead of deferred MCP tools, creating confusion when users see "Large MCP tools context" warnings elsewhere.
Problem
When running /context, users see a breakdown like:
Context Usage
claude-opus-4-5-20251101 · 27k/200k tokens (13%)
Estimated usage by category
⛁ System prompt: 3.5k tokens (1.7%)
⛁ System tools: 16.9k tokens (8.4%)
⛁ Custom agents: 1.9k tokens (1.0%)
⛁ Memory files: 1.2k tokens (0.6%)
⛁ Skills: 2.3k tokens (1.2%)
⛁ Messages: 1.1k tokens (0.6%)
⛶ Free space: 140k (70.0%)
Meanwhile, at startup or via /doctor, they see:
Context Usage Warnings
└ ⚠ Large MCP tools context (~39,769 tokens > 25,000)
└ MCP servers:
└ Sentry: 14 tools (~10,174 tokens)
└ atlassian: 28 tools (~8,980 tokens)
└ playwright: 44 tools (~8,377 tokens)
└ claude-in-chrome: 17 tools (~5,604 tokens)
└ ...
The disconnect is confusing: 13% context used, but ~40k tokens of MCP tools lurking.
Why This Matters
- Users see low context usage but get warnings about large MCP overhead
- The deferred tools become active when used, suddenly consuming that 40k
- No single view shows both current usage AND potential overhead
Suggested Solution
Add a line to /context for deferred MCP tools:
Estimated usage by category
⛁ System prompt: 3.5k tokens (1.7%)
⛁ System tools: 16.9k tokens (8.4%)
⛁ MCP tools (deferred): ~39.8k tokens (potential) ← NEW
⛁ Custom agents: 1.9k tokens (1.0%)
...
Or show the warning inline if it exceeds a threshold.
Related Issues
- #17959 -
used_percentagedoesn't include system overhead - #21553 -
context_windowin hooks excludes system overhead - #18400 -
/contextheader/table percentage mismatch - #12241 - Large MCP tools context warning
This is distinct: those issues are about already-loaded overhead being excluded. This issue is about showing potential overhead of deferred tools so users can understand the warning in context.
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗