Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opencode-bridge

opencode-bridge

by Subhajit-Roy-Partho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

opencode_status

Check whether a task started by this bridge is running, done, or failed, and retrieve its elapsed time and session ID.

Instructions

Status of a task started by this bridge (running/done/failed), elapsed time and session id.

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>"
    },
    "name": "opencode_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (status tri-state, elapsed time, session id), which is more than the annotations provide, but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, whether status ever transitions, or whether polling is required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the status enumeration and returned fields are packed efficiently. The parenthetical list is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back. It is missing the identity of the `id` argument and any note on failure/unknown-id behavior, which an agent polling a task would want.

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 0%, so nothing documents the lone `id` parameter. The phrasing "a task started by this bridge" plus the fact that session id is listed as a return value implies `id` is the task identifier rather than a session id, but that inference is never made explicit.

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 names a specific resource (task status) and enumerates the returned states (running/done/failed) plus side fields (elapsed time, session id), which clearly separates it from opencode_result or opencode_session_output. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling.

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?

"Status of a task started by this bridge" implies the polling use case and scopes it to bridge-started tasks, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit instruction on when to prefer this over opencode_result, opencode_list, or opencode_processes, leaving the choice to inference from names.

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