Skip to main content
Glama
mcp-1c-local-bridge

mcp-1c-local-bridge

by ntappw

result

Fetches output from a 1C command that exceeded its timeout, waiting briefly if the command is still running and returning table or JSON output.

Instructions

Результат команды, которая выполнялась дольше своего timeout.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNoСколько секунд подождать, если команда ещё идёт.
formatNoКак показать результат; по умолчанию - как у исходной команды.
command_idYesИдентификатор команды из ответа, не уложившегося в timeout.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 behavioral burden and largely drops it: it doesn't say whether the call blocks (the 'wait' parameter up to 280s suggests blocking), whether it is read-only, whether it can be called repeatedly, or whether it terminates the underlying command.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a three-parameter tool rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with zero annotations the description omits the operational context (idempotency, blocking behavior, relationship to the original execute call) an agent needs to call it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents 'command_id', 'wait' and 'format'; the description adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource – the result of a command that outlived its timeout – but the tool name 'result' is a bare noun and the description never states the verb (fetch/get). It is distinguishable from 'cancel' and 'execute' only by inference.

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 an implicit cue that this follows an execute that timed out, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative behaviors (e.g., polling via the 'wait' parameter, or using 'cancel' to abandon the command).

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