Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
colmena-mcp

colmena-mcp

by jdsalasca
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

result

Fetches a compact report by job ID for a delegated coding task, covering status, changed files, tests, risks, and branch.

Instructions

Reporte compacto (RESULT/FILES/TESTS/RISKS), archivos tocados y rama.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNomin (defecto, ~300 tokens) | normal | full
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 discloses only the output shape. It says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, whether the job must be in a terminal state, latency, or error cases — significant gaps for a job-result tool.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the output sections, with no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting the verb, but it is not bloated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning; it partially does by naming the sections, but omits the action it performs, the meaning of job_id, and the detail-level tradeoffs. For a job-scoped retrieval tool this is under-specified.

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 coverage is 50%: 'detail' has an inline enum description, but 'job_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions either parameter or the detail levels, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the output sections (RESULT/FILES/TESTS/RISKS), touched files and branch, which hints at a job-result retrieval tool, but it never states the verb or resource explicitly — no 'get/retrieve the result of a job'. It also does not distinguish itself from close siblings like report, status, or summarize.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus report, status, summarize, compact, or review, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the job must be finished). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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