Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opencode-mcp-bridge

opencode-mcp-bridge

by teodorgross
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Fetch the final result

opencode_result

Retrieve the final result of a completed OpenCode run using its runId, including reply text, changed files, and cost.

Instructions

Returns the final result of a finished run (reply text, changed files, cost).

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": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "opencode_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesThe runId of the run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the output content but does not explain behavior for unfinished runs, error handling, or whether it is a read-only operation. It covers basic expectations but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and returned data. No wasted words, clearly front-loaded.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the description lists the return contents. However, since there is no output schema, it could benefit from explicitly stating the requirement that the run must be finished and possibly how to determine that. Minor gap relative to its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the runId parameter is already described as 'The runId of the run.' The description adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns the final result of a finished run, specifying the content (reply text, changed files, cost). This distinguishes it from siblings like opencode_status (status info) and opencode_diff (individual changes).

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?

It implies usage for finished runs, which is a useful contextual cue, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like checking status first. The guidance is present but indirect.

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