codex-dobby-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_run

Retrieve the status or final response of a Dobby run by task ID, recovering results from local storage after timeouts.

Instructions

Get the status or final ToolResponse for a Dobby run by task id. This can recover results from .codex-dobby/runs even after a blocking tools/call timed out.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "repo_root": "<repo_root>"
    },
    "name": "get_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes
`repo_root`	Yes	Absolute path to the target git worktree. Always pass the caller's active repository root; Dobby deliberately has no implicit repo fallback.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`state`	Yes
`result`	No
`status`	No
`summary`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`repo_root`	Yes
`stop_reason`	No
`result_state`	No
`artifact_paths`	No
`pending_task_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially reveals behavior (read operation, file-based recovery) but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or auth requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, each adding value: first states core function, second adds important context. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema (not shown), the description gives sufficient context. Missing a note on task_id origin or error cases, but overall complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% and the description adds no information about the parameters themselves. The need for repo_root is only explained in the schema, not the description. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets the status or final ToolResponse for a Dobby run using a task ID, distinguishing it from siblings like start_run or wait_run. It is specific and not a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a specific use case (recovering results after a timed out call), but does not explicitly exclude other contexts or compare to alternatives like wait_run otherwise.

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

Deploy Server