Manage Bridge agent jobs by listing, dispatching, claiming, completing, or compiling capsules; use it to coordinate task handoffs and track job progress.
List, dispatch, claim, complete, or compile capsules for Bridge agent jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| globs | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| job_id | No | ||
| pr_url | No | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| commit_sha | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects. Three of the five verbs (dispatch, claim, complete) are clearly mutations, but the description never says what state changes, whether claims are exclusive/locking, what happens on conflict, or whether any action is idempotent. It only hints at mutability through verb choice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — the compact form does not earn its place given how much is left unsaid.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five actions, seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is wholly inadequate. Nothing tells an agent the valid action/parameter combinations, the workflow ordering, or what a successful call returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. It does not map job_id, task_id, pr_url, commit_sha, globs, or notes to any of the five actions, leaving the agent to infer which fields are required for dispatch versus claim versus complete — a critical gap for a multi-action tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names five distinct verbs (list, dispatch, claim, complete, compile) applied to a resource (capsules/agent jobs), so the domain is discernible. However, 'capsules' is unexplained jargon and the sentence lumps five very different operations into one clause, leaving the actual purpose of the tool ambiguous. It does not overlap with any sibling (bridge_context, bridge_decide, etc.), but that differentiation appears incidental rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any sibling, nor any indication of which of the five actions an agent should pick for a given intent. The order of operations implied by 'dispatch, claim, complete' (a workflow) is never explained, so an agent must guess the job lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.