Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
local-context

local-context

by JustinA988
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

task_status

Read-only

Read a capped slice of the latest stored task output, optionally by task name and character offset, to inspect recent run results.

Instructions

Read a capped slice of the latest stored task output.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "task_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTask name. Defaults to the latest run.
offsetNoCharacter offset.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's genuinely useful addition is 'capped slice', which warns that output is truncated — but it gives no cap size and never tells the agent to page with offset, so the practical consequence of truncation is left unclear.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but it wastes no words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should characterize what comes back — status, exit code, full vs truncated text — and it only says 'task output'. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage the core is adequate, but the return-shape and truncation-recovery story are missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (name defaults to latest run, offset is a character offset). The description adds only marginal framing ('latest', 'capped slice') and no new syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('task output') and adds meaningful scope qualifiers ('capped slice', 'latest stored'). An agent can distinguish it from run_task (which executes) and list_tasks (which enumerates), though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus run_task or read_file, and no mention of when not to use it. 'Latest stored' weakly implies 'inspecting a task that already ran', but this is inference rather than 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