◇ Could this help me?
Yes, and the mechanism is sound rather than merely plausible. Tool definitions and their structured responses occupy context on every conversation whether or not they get used, while a shell invocation is a short line of text, so the saving is real and the direction matches published guidance on executing code instead of calling tools directly. The observation that an agent can generate its own command-line wrapper around a service is also genuinely useful. General practice, with the trade the video never names: calling tools through the shell means the agent has shell execution, which is a much broader permission than a scoped tool connection, so the context saving is bought with a wider blast radius. Adopt it alongside a deliberate decision about what the agent is allowed to run, not instead of one.
Help me work out which of my configured tool servers are worth keeping. List each one and estimate what its definitions cost me in context on every conversation, then tell me which ones I have actually used recently. For the ones that are costing context without earning it, tell me whether a command-line equivalent exists and what converting would involve. Before I convert anything, be explicit about the trade: tell me what shell execution lets you do that a scoped tool connection does not, and propose a permissions policy for what you are allowed to run, so I am choosing the wider capability deliberately rather than acquiring it as a side effect.