Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coding-agent-mcp

coding-agent-mcp

by dmrtx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_task

Check a coding agent's current state by providing its task ID. Retrieve concise metadata to supervise progress and guide orchestration decisions.

Instructions

Returns task state and concise metadata

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesTask ID to query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation, but does not mention possible states, error behavior, permissions, or what 'concise metadata' includes.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and result, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and any behavioral details leaves gaps about what state values exist and how the response is structured.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description clearly states that task_id is the task identifier to query. The description adds no extra semantic detail, which is acceptable given the schema already covers the single parameter adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and names the resource ('task state and concise metadata'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_task_output, which presumably returns full output, though this distinction is not stated explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_output, start_task, or cancel_task. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description rather than stated.

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