Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
grok

grok

by cigenb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grok_collect

Collects unclaimed asynchronous subagent results for client hooks and returns hook JSON; on Stop events, signals when the client should wait.

Instructions

客户端 hook 专用：收取未领取结果，或在 Stop 时提示等待。返回 hook JSON。

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": {
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "grok_collect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYes
source_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says it returns hook JSON and gestures at a Stop-time wait, but never explains whether collecting consumes/removes the result, what happens if nothing is unclaimed, or whether it blocks – all critical for an agent deciding between this and grok_wait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short line with the hook-only constraint front-loaded, so it is efficient. But the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness – a second sentence on result-consumption semantics would earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a required enum parameter, an optional identifier, no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what "hook JSON" contains or how the three event values change behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely doesn't. It mentions "Stop" (one of three enum values) but leaves PostToolUse, UserPromptSubmit and source_id entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ("收取未领取结果" – collect unclaimed results) and scope ("客户端 hook 专用"), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling grok_wait, and "在 Stop 时提示等待" (hint waiting at Stop) sounds like wait behavior, leaving the boundary between the two tools ambiguous.

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?

"客户端 hook 专用" gives one real usage constraint – this is only for client hooks – which is useful routing information. But there is no guidance on when to prefer grok_collect over grok_wait or grok_status, and no statement of when not to use it.

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