Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
claude-code-mcp

claude-code-mcp

by win10ogod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

claude_code_execute_async

Execute a Claude Code task asynchronously in the background, returning a task ID so you can continue working and retrieve results later.

Instructions

Start a Claude Code task in the background and return immediately with a task_id. Use claude_code_check_result to retrieve the result later. This allows you to continue working while Claude Code runs.

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": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "claude_code_execute_async"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoModel to use (e.g., "sonnet", "opus", "haiku")
promptYesThe task prompt for Claude Code to execute
working_dirNoWorking directory for the task (default: current directory)
output_formatNoOutput format: "text" (default), "json", or "stream-json"text
additional_argsNoAdditional CLI arguments to pass to Claude Code
skip_permissionsNoSkip permission checks for automation (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the non-blocking nature, immediate return, task_id handoff, and deferred result retrieval. It does not mention safety implications like skipped permissions or failure handling, but the core async behavior is transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The key behavioral fact (background execution and immediate task_id return) is front-loaded, and the retrieval-next step is stated immediately.

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?

For an async task-launch tool, the description provides the essential workflow: start, get task_id, check result later. It does not define the exact shape of the result, but there is no output schema and the absence is mitigated by pointing to the sibling check_result tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, and no parameter is given deeper meaning, but the schema already documents every parameter adequately.

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 identifies a specific action: starting a Claude Code task in the background and returning immediately with a task_id. This distinguishes it from synchronous execution and from result retrieval via claude_code_check_result.

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 explains the async workflow well, telling the agent to use claude_code_check_result later and that it can continue working. It does not explicitly compare against claude_code_execute or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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