Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cc-delegate

cc-delegate

by EtienneLescot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Fetch the result of a completed task

fetch_task_result

Get the output of a completed delegated development task, including summary, patch, files changed, tests, and cost.

Instructions

When status is 'succeeded', returns summary, patch path, files changed, tests and cost.

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>"
    },
    "name": "fetch_task_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists what is returned on success but does not disclose behavior for non-succeeded tasks or invalid task_ids. No mention of error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by front-loading the primary action and then listing return fields.

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 description lists the return fields (summary, patch path, etc.) which is helpful. But it is incomplete: no mention of error conditions, and no output schema exists. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is minimally adequate but could be improved.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and description does not mention the task_id parameter. There is no explanation of what task_id is, how to obtain it, or its required format. The description adds no value beyond the schema for this parameter.

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 verb 'fetch' and resource 'task result', and specifies the condition 'when status is succeeded'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_task_status (which just gets status) and run_dev_task (which runs a task).

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 implies usage when a task has succeeded, but does not explicitly exclude use when task is pending, failed, or when to use alternatives. Provides good context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools