Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
patchwork-os

patchwork-os

by Oolab-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

runVSCodeTask

Destructive

Run a VS Code task by its name, wait for it to finish, and obtain the exit code. Use for build, test, or lint tasks with optional type filter and timeout.

Instructions

Run VS Code task by name. Waits for completion, returns exit code. For build/test/lint tasks.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "runVSCodeTask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the task to run
typeNoTask type filter (e.g. 'shell', 'npm') to disambiguate tasks with the same name
timeoutNoSeconds to wait for task completion (default: 60, max: 300)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true; description adds that the tool waits for completion and returns exit code. This provides some behavioral context but does not elaborate on potential side effects beyond the existing annotation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and key behavior.

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?

Given simple tool with full schema, description covers return value (exit code) and typical usage. Could mention error handling for non-existent tasks, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for name, type, and timeout.

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 the action ('Run'), resource ('VS Code task by name'), behavior ('Waits for completion, returns exit code'), and use cases ('For build/test/lint tasks'). This distinguishes it from siblings like runCommand or runInTerminal.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description implies usage for build/test/lint tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like runCommand or runInTerminal, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions.

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