AiLinkAny

Read remote task result

get_task_result

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads the final result of a previously submitted computer task by command_id. Small results are returned inline. Large results return result_mode=PAGED with size/preview metadata; continue with get_task_result_chunk using the same command_id instead of resubmitting the original operation. If the task is not terminal yet, continue with get_task_status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "command_id": "<command_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command_id`	Yes	The command_id returned by a previous device tool call.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`error`	Yes
`method`	Yes
`result`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`advisory`	No
`terminal`	Yes
`device_id`	Yes
`exit_code`	Yes
`retryable`	Yes
`command_id`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`device_name`	Yes
`next_action`	Yes
`result_mode`	Yes
`workflow_id`	Yes
`brand_notice`	No
`failure_kind`	Yes
`result_bytes`	Yes
`result_chars`	Yes
`ai_session_id`	Yes
`failure_domain`	Yes
`fatal_incident`	No
`handoff_notice`	No
`result_preview`	Yes
`retry_after_ms`	Yes
`auto_diagnostics`	No
`display_headline`	No
`display_severity`	No
`result_available`	Yes
`result_next_offset`	Yes
`diagnostic_required`	No
`auto_diagnostic_triggered`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's contribution is the return-mode branching (inline vs result_mode=PAGED with size/preview metadata) and the continuation workflow, which is real added context. The remaining gap is error behavior: it never says what happens for an unknown, expired, or mismatched command_id, which is the most likely failure mode for a retrieval tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two branch conditions and the prohibitive instruction. Every sentence changes agent behavior; nothing is decorative.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, this covers everything needed to call it correctly: the identifier source, the paged-result continuation path, and the non-terminal fallback. Return-value detail is rightly delegated to the output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that command_id comes from a previous device tool call. The description repeats "by command_id" and adds the instruction to reuse the same command_id across chunk calls, which is mild but genuine added meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantics.

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 ("Reads the final result of a previously submitted computer task") scoped by command_id, which cleanly separates it from get_task_status (progress) and get_task_result_chunk (continuation). An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names both alternatives and the exact condition that selects each: use get_task_result_chunk with the same command_id when result_mode=PAGED, and use get_task_status when the task is not yet terminal. It also states the anti-pattern (do not resubmit the original operation), leaving nothing to inference.

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

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?