Retrieve bounded output from a coding agent task, using a cursor for pagination and a maximum byte limit to control response size.
Returns bounded task output with pagination cursor support
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Byte offset to start reading | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID | |
| max_bytes | No | Maximum bytes to read (default 20000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add transparency by stating that output is bounded and paginated, which signals truncation and the need for cursor-based iteration. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as invalid cursors, empty output, task completion requirements, or whether the call is safe/read-only.
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?
The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the return action, the resource, the output bound, and the pagination capability in order of importance, making it highly efficient.
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 simple three-parameter read tool, the description plus schema covers the basic call shape, but the absence of an output schema and any mention of the response format leaves a gap. In particular, the agent is not told how the cursor is obtained or used across pages, which is essential for effectively consuming a paginated result.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains cursor as a byte offset and max_bytes as a byte limit. The description's 'pagination cursor support' adds contextual meaning but no additional syntax or format details, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a concrete resource ('task output'), and crucial qualifiers ('bounded', 'pagination cursor support') that immediately distinguish this tool from sibling get_task and the other agent-management tools. Even without opening the schema, an agent can understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.
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?
The description implies a clear use case—fetching potentially large task output in bounded chunks using a pagination cursor—but it never explicitly says when to choose this over get_task or other siblings. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.