Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
subtask

subtask

by tedin7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reply

Send a follow-up message to a completed background job by ID and read the returned advisory feedback.

Instructions

Jev auto adds advisory feedback checks; read the output. Continue a finished job.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
messageYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 mentions auto-added advisory feedback checks and reading output, but does not explain side effects, state changes, permissions, or what 'continue' actually does to a finished job.

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?

The description is only two sentences, but the first sentence is cryptic and front-loads an unexplained system behavior instead of the tool action. The action phrase 'Continue a finished job' is clear but appears second.

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 job-orchestration mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is substantially incomplete. It does not explain what a 'finished job' is, what reply changes, or what the agent should do with the output it is told to read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required 'id' or 'message' parameters. It leaves an agent to infer that 'id' identifies the job and 'message' is the reply content, with no format or constraint details.

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 states 'Continue a finished job,' which gives a rough action, but it does not clarify whether reply resumes execution, submits a message, or answers a prompt. The phrase 'Jev auto adds advisory feedback checks' is not about the tool's purpose and leaves the action ambiguous relative to siblings like start, steer, or result.

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 phrase 'Continue a finished job' implies the tool should be used when a job has finished, and 'read the output' suggests a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit comparison to siblings such as steer or start, and no guidance on when not to use this tool.

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