Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opencode-bridge

opencode-bridge

by Subhajit-Roy-Partho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

opencode_processes

Inspect running opencode CLI and TUI processes at the OS level to find standalone work missing from sessions and detect hung processes.

Instructions

READ-ONLY. OS-level view: running opencode run / opencode TUI processes (pid, elapsed, agent, title, working directory). Shows work that has no session in the service (e.g. --standalone runs) and processes that hang.

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_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does state READ-ONLY up front, plus the fact that it inspects OS-level process state rather than service state. It omits whether the scan is local-machine only, its cost, or what an empty result means, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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 compact sentences with the safety property front-loaded ("READ-ONLY.") followed by scope and then the disambiguating use case. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the situations it covers, which is the essential information. Minor gaps remain around result scope (local host only?) and whether a large process table is returned.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly does not invent inputs.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: OS-level running `opencode run` / TUI processes, with the visible fields enumerated (pid, elapsed, agent, title, working directory). The phrase "no session in the service" explicitly carves out its domain from the session-oriented siblings such as opencode_sessions and opencode_list.

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?

Gives a clear selection context: use it for work that has no session in the service (e.g. --standalone runs) or for processes that hang. It does not name a specific alternative to use for normal session-tracked queries, leaving that inference to the agent.

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