Vibecoders MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tasks_steer

Send a line of input to a running background task's stdin to steer its behavior, enabling interactive control when the task accepts mid-run input.

Instructions

Send a line of input to a running background task’s stdin. Best-effort: one-shot delegate CLIs may not accept input mid-run (the tool will say so).

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_steer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	the task id to steer
`input`	Yes	text to write to the task’s stdin

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the operation is best-effort and warns that one-shot delegate CLIs may reject mid-run input, including that the tool will indicate when this occurs. This is valuable transparency beyond the raw schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by one essential caveat. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 the tool's low complexity, the description is nearly complete: it explains the action, target, and the main failure mode ('the tool will say so'). No output schema exists, but for a two-parameter tool, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know.

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%, with id and input already described clearly. The description adds the nuance of 'a line of input' (implying line-based stdin) and the best-effort behavior, but it does not substantially extend the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a line of input to a running background task’s stdin.' This clearly defines the action and target, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like tasks_interrupt and tasks_list by focusing on stdin input.

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 phrase 'to a running background task' clarifies the intended use case, and the best-effort caveat provides context about limitations. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over interrupt or list siblings.

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