Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-agent-bridge

claude-agent-bridge

by pinkpanther7929
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

claude_read_result

Read a Claude delegation output file, or return the current delegated output when no path is provided.

Instructions

Read a Claude delegation output file, or the latest output when no path is provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "claude_read_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
pathNo
max_charsNo
output_rootNo.tmp/claude_delegate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses one trait: the fallback to the latest output when path is omitted. It says nothing about truncation (despite a max_chars cap), what happens when no output exists, or any permission/error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is tight and readable, though its brevity borders on under-specification given four parameters.

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?

A 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions is covered by only one sentence. Critical context, notably the meaning of max_chars/output_root and the fallback semantics, is missing for reliable invocation.

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 0% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. Path is only loosely referenced ('no path is provided'), while cwd, max_chars (with its truncation/limit semantics), and output_root are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (read a Claude delegation output file) and adds the useful default case of returning the latest output when no path is given. It differentiates adequately from 'ask'/'review_diff' by implication, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (retrieving delegated Claude output) and discloses the no-path fallback, which is a form of usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over claude_status or claude_ask, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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