Skip to main content
Glama
ryanameier

kimi-swarm-bridge

by ryanameier
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Continue Kimi Session

kimi_continue_task
Destructive

Send follow-up instructions to an existing Kimi session instead of creating a duplicate, preserving prior context for corrections or additional work, and return the new prompt ID and running status.

Instructions

Submit follow-up instructions to an owned existing Kimi session while preserving prior context. Use for corrections, additional work, or deliberate continuation of a recovered job instead of creating a duplicate session. Returns the new promptId and running status; when durable jobs are configured, the registry is updated to the new prompt and running state. The continuation may execute commands and modify files, and optional model, thinking, and swarm settings apply to the new prompt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planNoOptional ordered steps for the follow-up work.
taskYesFollow-up instruction, correction, or additional work to perform in the existing session.
depthNoResearch depth: quick (one source per item), standard (default; one or two authoritative sources, gaps marked not documented), deep (cross-checked, thorough).
modelNoConfigured Kimi model alias. In the managed ai& deployment omit this field to keep the centrally configured model binding.
thinkingNoOptional Kimi thinking setting. Omit to keep the bridge default.
sessionIdYesExisting Kimi session ID whose context should be preserved for the follow-up task.
swarmModeNoOptional swarm-mode setting to verify before the continuation prompt. Set true only when the follow-up should allow native AgentSwarm.
acceptanceCriteriaNoOptional verifiable conditions for the follow-up work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / depth
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Research depth: quick (one source per item), standard (default; one or two authoritative sources, gaps marked not documented), deep (cross-checked, thorough).",
+  "enum": [
+    "quick",
+    "standard",
+    "deep"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / acceptanceCriteria / description
      Added value: +"Optional verifiable conditions for the follow-up work."
    • addedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Added value: +"Configured Kimi model alias. In the managed ai& deployment omit this field to keep the centrally configured model binding."
    • addedInput schema / properties / plan / description
      Added value: +"Optional ordered steps for the follow-up work."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sessionId / description
      Added value: +"Existing Kimi session ID whose context should be preserved for the follow-up task."
    • addedInput schema / properties / swarmMode / description
      Added value: +"Optional swarm-mode setting to verify before the continuation prompt. Set true only when the follow-up should allow native AgentSwarm."
    • addedInput schema / properties / task / description
      Added value: +"Follow-up instruction, correction, or additional work to perform in the existing session."
    • addedInput schema / properties / thinking / description
      Added value: +"Optional Kimi thinking setting. Omit to keep the bridge default."
  3. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it warns that the continuation may execute commands and modify files, describes return values (new promptId and running status), and notes registry updates when durable jobs are configured. This meaningfully informs an agent about side effects and state changes.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, including return behavior and destructive side effects, without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, return values, and destructive behavior, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. It does not address failure cases or what happens when the session is not found or not owned, but the annotations and full schema coverage cover most operational needs.

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 every parameter. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only noting that optional model, thinking, and swarm settings apply to the new prompt, which is already reflected in the parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit follow-up instructions') and names the resource ('owned existing Kimi session'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes the tool from creating a duplicate session, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate a specific sibling tool, so the distinction is slightly less sharp than it could be.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: for corrections, additional work, or deliberate continuation of a recovered job instead of creating a duplicate session. It gives clear use-case context but does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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