Skip to main content
Glama
pc-style

MCP Goose Subagents Server

by pc-style

get_subagent_results

Retrieve completed task outputs from autonomous developer teams after delegating work to specialized agents for parallel or sequential execution.

Instructions

Get results from completed subagents

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesSession ID to get results for

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that retrieves subagent session results by session_id, checks if session exists, and returns formatted output including task details, status, output, and any errors.
    async getSubagentResults(args) {
      const { session_id } = args;
    
      if (!this.activeSubagents.has(session_id)) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          `Session ${session_id} not found`
        );
      }
    
      const session = this.activeSubagents.get(session_id);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `Subagent Session Results\n\nSession ID: ${session_id}\nTask: ${session.task}\nStatus: ${session.status}\nExecution Mode: ${session.execution_mode}\nAgents: ${session.agents.length}\n\n` +
                  `Start Time: ${session.startTime}\n` +
                  `End Time: ${session.endTime || 'Still running'}\n\n` +
                  `Output:\n${session.output || 'No output yet'}\n\n` +
                  `${session.error ? `Errors:\n${session.error}` : ''}`
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition in the listTools response, specifying the name, description, and input schema requiring a session_id.
    {
      name: 'get_subagent_results',
      description: 'Get results from completed subagents',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          session_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Session ID to get results for'
          }
        },
        required: ['session_id']
      }
    }
  • src/index.js:155-156 (registration)
    Registration in the CallToolRequestHandler switch statement that dispatches calls to the getSubagentResults handler.
    case 'get_subagent_results':
      return await this.getSubagentResults(args);

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 states the tool retrieves results but doesn't clarify what 'results' entail (e.g., data format, success/failure status), whether it's idempotent, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the description contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'results' include (e.g., structured data, error messages), how to interpret them, or any behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of handling subagent results, more context is needed to make the tool usable without trial and error.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'session_id' documented as 'Session ID to get results for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining session ID format or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get results') and resource ('from completed subagents'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_active_subagents' or 'delegate_to_subagents', which might handle similar subagent-related operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that subagents must be completed), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_active_subagents' for active subagents or 'delegate_to_subagents' for initiating tasks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.