vibekit_get_taskGet the status and result of a task submitted via vibekit_submit_task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID returned from vibekit_submit_task |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the call succeeded. | |
| data | No | Task details: status, logs/result summary, and repo info. | |
| error | No | Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Task details: status, logs/result summary, and repo info."
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., re-fetch behavior, error states). With annotations covering safety, the description meets the baseline but does not exceed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that directly conveys the purpose without fluff. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. The one-parameter tool is fully covered by the description and schema, leaving no gaps for an agent to misinterpret.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with description for taskId. The description adds value by specifying that the ID comes from vibekit_submit_task, linking the tools together and clarifying the parameter's origin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status and result of a task', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibekit_submit_task (creates) and vibekit_cancel_task (cancels). It references the specific submission tool, making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use after vibekit_submit_task. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like vibekit_wait_for_task for polling, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.
All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.
36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.