Poll the status of a background agent run.
Poll the status of a background agent run.
Returns stdout/stderr accumulated so far, status, and exit code.
{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": {"job_id": str, "status": str, "stdout": str, "exit_code": int}}
opencode_get_run_status(job_id="abc123")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID from opencode_run_agent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.11Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it returns stdout/stderr accumulated so far, status, and exit code, plus the exact return shape. It does not mention polling cadence or rate limits, but the annotations lower the disclosure burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by return format and a concise example. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by providing the exact return format, including the structure of the data object. It is nearly complete for a polling tool, though it could optionally mention possible status values or what happens after the job completes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that job_id is a string 'Job ID from opencode_run_agent'. The description includes an example call but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the status of a background agent run.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as opencode_run_agent, opencode_cancel_run, and opencode_list_runs by focusing on status polling for a single background job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'Poll' and identifying the job_id as coming from opencode_run_agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus opencode_list_runs or opencode_get_health, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.