BCD — Bridge Control Delegate

process_output

Read-only

Read the output and status of a start_process session. newOnly returns only output since the last newOnly read; waitMs waits for new output or exit; waitForPrompt waits until it asks for input (heuristic). Default: the last tailChars of output. Returns JSON with running, exitCode, output, nextCursor and interactionState.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`cursor`	No
`length`	No
`offset`	No
`waitMs`	No
`newOnly`	No
`deviceId`	No	Computer name or id from list_devices. Optional with one computer online or a default set.
`tailChars`	No
`waitForPrompt`	No
`workSessionId`	No	Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / workSessionId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Work session from create_work_session. Pass the same ID on every call in this conversation; omit for legacy unscoped work.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and no destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the wait/exit semantics of waitMs, the heuristic nature of waitForPrompt, the tailChars default, and the shape of the returned JSON. It omits auth/rate-limit context, but it discloses useful operational behavior.

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?

Dense but efficient: purpose is front-loaded, then conditional-option semantics, then the default, then the return shape in a single sentence. Nearly every clause carries information; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (running, exitCode, output, nextCursor, interactionState), covering the return-value burden. Combined with the wait semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the cursor/length/offset pagination parameters are left unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain four parameters well (newOnly, waitMs, waitForPrompt, tailChars), but leaves cursor, length, and offset entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so pagination behavior is unclear. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the output and status of a start_process session'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like process_input, start_process, stop_process, and list_process_sessions. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without opening any schema.

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 explains the semantics of the waiting options (newOnly, waitMs, waitForPrompt) but never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as check_operation or process_input, nor any explicit when-not conditions. Usage is only implied through the option descriptions.

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

All BCD — Bridge Control Delegate tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?