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

opencode-mcp-bridge

by teodorgross
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Show a run's task list

opencode_todos

Retrieve the current todo list of a subagent for a specific run, giving a real-time view of progress on long coding tasks.

Instructions

Returns the subagent's own todo list for a run — the most informative view of a long task while it is still working.

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_todos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesThe runId of the run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, and it adds context about being useful during in-progress tasks. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, permissions, or rate limits, though for a simple read tool this is minimally adequate.

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 is front-loaded with the key action 'Returns' and includes a useful contextual phrase. It is concise with no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one parameter, no output schema—the description sufficiently explains what it does and when it is most valuable. It does not describe the response format, but the todo list concept is self-explanatory and the usage context is clear.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a basic description of runId ('The runId of the run'). The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, 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 subagent's own todo list for a run, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like opencode_result or opencode_status by emphasizing it is the most informative view during a long task while it is still working.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool—while a long task is still working—making it useful for monitoring progress. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, such as recommending opencode_result for final output.

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