Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Farhan Agent Bridge

Farhan Agent Bridge

by farshaikh17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

submit_claude_task

Delegates user-authorized text-analysis tasks via Claude Code subscription login, with optional public web research, and returns results through polling.

Instructions

Delegate a user-authorized text-analysis task through official Claude Code subscription login. Optional public web research with allow_web=true. No shell, local-file, MCP, messaging or publishing tools. Uses Sonnet and checks subscription auth before each task. One shared active task, 20-minute timeout, polling required. First test: Reply exactly CLAUDE_BRIDGE_TEST_OK. Never infer allowance from token counts; no API fallback is configured.

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": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "submit_claude_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
allow_webNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say it is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive): no shell/local-file/MCP/messaging/publishing capability, subscription auth checked before every task, model pinned to Sonnet, single shared active task, 20-minute timeout, no API fallback, and a warning not to infer allowance from token counts. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the capability boundary and constraints stated early and no filler. The telegraphic sentence fragments ('No shell, local-file, MCP, messaging or publishing tools.') cost a little readability but each clause carries distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description covers the operational essentials: async execution, timeout, polling, auth, one-task concurrency, and the no-fallback limitation. It does not say what the submission returns (e.g., a task identifier to use with get_claude_task), which is the one remaining gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does explain both parameters: task is a text-analysis payload (with the test string as an example) and allow_web enables optional public web research. It omits the task 1–50,000 character limits and the allow_web=false default, which remain schema-only.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Delegate') and resource ('a user-authorized text-analysis task') plus the execution channel ('official Claude Code subscription login', 'Uses Sonnet'). The Claude/Codex split is self-evident against sibling submit_codex_task, so an agent can pick the right submit tool without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage conditions: allow_web=true for public web research, polling required after submission, one shared active task at a time, and a prescribed first test ('Reply exactly CLAUDE_BRIDGE_TEST_OK'). It stops short of explicitly naming get_claude_task as the polling companion, leaving that inference to the agent.

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