opencode-mcp-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

opencode_batch_status

Check the current status of multiple OpenCode CLI sessions at once by submitting a list of session IDs, returning the state of each batch member in a single request.

Instructions

Returns status for a batch of session IDs.

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": {
      "session_ids": "<session_ids>"
    },
    "name": "opencode_batch_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_ids`	Yes	Session IDs to check.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it works with mixed valid/invalid session IDs, what happens with unknown IDs, or any latency/batching behavior. For a non-annotated tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose quickly and front-loads the key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has simple structure (one array parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so complexity is low. The description is adequate for a minimal status-checking tool, but it lacks detail about result mapping and edge cases that would matter for an agent invoking this on a batch of IDs.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'session_ids' as 'Session IDs to check.' The description adds little semantic nuance beyond this — it doesn't clarify array size limits, ID format expectations, or how results map back to individual inputs. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'Returns status for a batch of session IDs,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the batch nature of this tool from the likely single-session opencode_status sibling, but it does not explicitly differentiate or explain what 'status' contains or how the returned format differs from related tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this batch status tool versus opencode_status (single session) or when a batch check is appropriate. It does not state alternatives, exclusions, or context where the tool is most/least useful.

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