Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cc-delegate

cc-delegate

by EtienneLescot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Delegate a heavy dev task to the worker model

run_dev_task

Starts an autonomous coding agent on an isolated git worktree to complete a development task. Returns a task ID for status polling.

Instructions

Starts an autonomous coding worker (on whatever model DELEGATE_MODEL points to) on an isolated git worktree. Returns a task_id immediately; poll with get_task_status, then fetch_task_result.

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": {
      "spec": "<spec>",
      "repo_path": "<repo_path>"
    },
    "name": "run_dev_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesObjective and constraints in natural language
max_turnsNo
repo_pathYesAbsolute path to the target git repository
timeout_msNo
base_branchNo
test_commandNo
max_budget_usdNo
definition_of_doneNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Mentions autonomous worker and isolated git worktree, indicating it is a heavy operation. However, with no annotations, details about side effects, permissions, or errors are missing. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys core action, asynchronous nature, and follow-up workflow. No waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 8 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail on parameter behavior, return value, and error handling. Provides pattern but not completeness.

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 low (25%). Description does not explain parameters beyond those already in schema (spec, repo_path). Other params like max_turns, timeout_ms are undocumented, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Description clearly states it starts an autonomous coding worker, returns a task_id, and directs to poll with sibling tools. Specific verb and resource, differentiates from siblings by mentioning polling workflow.

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?

Describes the asynchronous usage pattern (poll with get_task_status, then fetch_task_result). Provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when-not or alternatives beyond siblings.

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