grok_agent_consultStart an isolated read-only consultation with the Grok CLI agent to get coding guidance, supporting non-git project roots via exact allowlists.
Start an isolated read-only consult session; non-git exact allowlisted roots are supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| transport | No | stdio |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.33.0Input schema / properties / task / properties / timeout_seconds / maximumPrevious value: -3600New value: +86400v0.26.1Input schema / properties / task / properties / mount_pathsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "maxLength": 1024,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 16,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / task / properties / review_laneAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 96,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The title ("Consult (read-only)") and description ("read-only consult session") assert a non-mutating operation, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the schema even accepts permission_profile="workspace". An agent cannot tell from the definition whether the call is truly read-only, so the surfaced signals conflict rather than complement.
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?
One short sentence with the purpose front-loaded, so it is not verbose. However, the second clause is unexplained jargon that consumes space without conveying actionable meaning to an agent.
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?
This is a session-launching tool with a large nested task packet and no output schema, yet the description omits how results are later retrieved (grok_agent_status/poll), timeouts, and the meaning of lane/transport. One sentence is far too thin for the tool's actual complexity.
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 0% across three parameters (lane, task, transport), including a nested task packet with ~20 fields, and the description says nothing about lane, transport, or any packet field. The only fragment of parameter meaning is the cryptic "non-git exact allowlisted roots" line, which at best gestures at project_root/mount_paths.
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 and resource ("Start an isolated read-only consult session"), so an agent can tell this spawns a consultation rather than executing or fixing code. It does not name or contrast any sibling (grok_agent_review, grok_delegate, grok_agent_execute), so differentiation relies on inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The clause about "non-git exact allowlisted roots" reads like a constraint but is never tied to a decision an agent would make, so usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.