Retrieve the current task status from an OpenCode session using its sessionId; pass detailed to include the full response text.
Get current task status by observing a session. Pass detailed for full response text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detailed | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this blocks, polls, or snapshots, what 'observing a session' entails, whether it requires an active session, or what errors occur for a missing session — a significant gap for a status/observation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing of rich content.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, 3 parameters at 33% coverage, and a large sibling set containing near-duplicate status tools, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly or prefer it over alternatives.
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 coverage is only 33% (only 'directory' is documented). The description partially clarifies 'detailed' ('for full response text'), but leaves 'sessionId' and the directory default semantics to the schema. It adds marginal value and does not compensate for the low coverage.
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?
States a verb and resource ('Get current task status by observing a session'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like opencode_session_status or opencode_session_get, leaving the agent unsure which status tool to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus opencode_session_status, opencode_job_get, or opencode_wait, all of which plausibly cover the same 'task status' territory. The only hint ('Pass detailed for full response text') is a parameter note, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.