Monitor a dispatched OpenCode task by session or job ID, returning current status and captured response text.
Observe a dispatched task by session, including current status and captured response text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | No | ||
| pollMs | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. | |
| sessionId | No |
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 reveals that output includes status and captured response text, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether calls block, how pollMs/deadline interact, or what happens when the job is still running or already finished.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is stated immediately. It is short rather than padded, though brevity here shades into under-specification that is penalized in other dimensions.
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?
For a five-parameter, zero-required, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin. Nothing explains the polling/timeout mechanics implied by pollMs and deadline, nor the relationship between jobId and sessionId, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.
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 description coverage is only 20% (just 'directory'), and 0 of 5 parameters are required, yet the description explains none of them. 'By session' faintly gestures at sessionId, but jobId, pollMs, and deadline — the parameters that actually control behavior — are never clarified.
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 specific verb (observe/get) and resource (a dispatched task/job), plus what comes back (status and captured response text). It is distinguishable from its only functional sibling opencode_job_cancel, though the phrase 'by session' sits awkwardly against the schema's primary jobId parameter and is never reconciled.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. An agent is left to infer that this polls a previously dispatched job and should be compared against opencode_job_cancel or opencode_wait; nothing in the text routes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.