Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opencode-bridge

opencode-bridge

by Subhajit-Roy-Partho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

opencode_list

Lists tasks started through this bridge to help track delegated opencode work; use opencode_sessions to view every session.

Instructions

List tasks started by this bridge. For ALL opencode sessions use opencode_sessions.

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": "opencode_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute the important scoping trait that results are limited to tasks started by this bridge, but says nothing about ordering, whether completed and running tasks are both included, or response shape. For a read-only list the risk is low, but the disclosure is thin.

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 short sentences, with the scoping statement front-loaded and the disambiguation immediately after. No filler or restatement of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 tool is simple (zero params, no annotations), which lowers the bar, but with no output schema the description should clarify what a returned "task" contains and how it differs from a session. As written the agent knows the scope but not what it will get back.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. Nothing in the description misrepresents or omits parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and scoped resource: "List tasks started by this bridge." That scope distinguishes it from opencode_sessions, which covers all sessions. The only ambiguity is that "tasks" is never defined relative to "sessions," so an agent must infer the relationship.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to a named alternative: "For ALL opencode sessions use opencode_sessions." The condition selecting the sibling is clear. It does not address other siblings such as opencode_status or opencode_processes, but naming one alternative with a condition is solid 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