Missing /details command in opencode v1 #3792

Activity

1. oliver-14203

   added

   bugSomething isn't workingSomething isn't working

   on Nov 3, 2025
2. github-actions

   added

   opentuiThis relates to changes in v1.0, now that opencode uses opentuiThis relates to changes in v1.0, now that opencode uses opentui

   on Nov 3, 2025
3. github-actions commented on Nov 3, 2025

   

   github-actionsBot

   on Nov 3, 2025 – with GitHub Actions

   Contributor

   More actions

   This issue might be a duplicate of existing issues. Please check:

   • Bug: Tool Calls are not shown directly if tool details are toggled off #3065: Bug: Tool Calls are not shown directly if tool details are toggled off - Similar functionality around controlling tool call visibility
   • OpenTUI: /thinking command is missing #3641: OpenTUI: /thinking command is missing - Another missing slash command in OpenTUI v1
   • Export functionality seems to be missing in opentui version #3748: Export functionality seems to be missing in opentui version - Missing functionality in OpenTUI version
   • 1.0.2 Missing ability to open editor for history #3642: 1.0.2 Missing ability to open editor for history - Missing functionality after v1 upgrade

   Feel free to ignore if none of these address your specific case.
4. rekram1-node

   marked [FEATURE]: Have the ability to show tool raw output in OpenCode UI #3790 as a duplicate of this issue on Nov 3, 2025
5. thdxr commented on Nov 4, 2025

   

   thdxr

   on Nov 4, 2025 – with Linear

   Member

   More actions

   so i didn't add this yet because the default view is already very compressed - you find that it's still too noisy? we only show edit and bash tool calls
6. thdxr

   self-assigned this

   on Nov 4, 2025
7. rekram1-node commented on Nov 4, 2025

   

   rekram1-node

   on Nov 4, 2025

   Contributor

   More actions

   Another user wants /details or some equivalent to be able to see more detail from tool calls

   👍React with 👍12Reacted by Arsham Shirvani, Bo, Mayank Chauhan, Scott Baxter, Ben Vargas, Serbitar, Falko, 崔鹏飞 Cui Pengfei, Wei, Arjun Pramanik and 2 more
8. scottrbaxter commented on Nov 5, 2025

   

   scottrbaxter

   on Nov 5, 2025

   More actions

   Adding to this, i had a bindkey set to details which was really useful to quickly toggle on/off and re-reference tool calls. definitely would like to see this re-implemented. currently holding out with 0.15.31 until more features like this are added back in.

   thanks for rapid turnaround and all of the community responses!
9. luifr10 commented on Nov 9, 2025

   

   luifr10

   on Nov 9, 2025

   More actions

   Hello,
   I agree that this feature seems essential to me.
   Once a call to a tool has been made, it is useful to be able to see the raw output to that call.

   👍React with 👍10Reacted by Bo, 温鑫(Xin Wen), Brian, Mayank Chauhan, Scott Baxter, Jordan McAlpine, Louis Fredice NJAKO MOLOM, Serbitar, Ivan Stambuk and EastRane
10. przemyslawsokol commented on Nov 11, 2025

    

    przemyslawsokol

    on Nov 11, 2025

    Last edited by przemyslawsokol

    More actions

    I'm not sure if that falls under what /details command could be used for, but it would be super useful to be able to control verbosity level in some way. To give you an example, here's one prompt against some send.rs Rust file (a simple question, with a typo, rather than a request to apply any change):

    Can we change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in @examples/send.rs. Would it be correct?
    txt examples/send.rs

    And here's the model response (Grok Code Fast 1 in this case):

    The user wants to change "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead" in examples/send.rs. They ask if it would be correct.

    Reviewing code change

    • The user wants to modify a string in examples/send.rs, changing "String value from thread" to "Moved value from thead."
    • Checking line 15, the original string is part of a println! macro, likely related to thread handling.

    Assessing correctness

    • The change replaces "String" with "Moved" and has a typo ("thead" instead of "thread").
    • Need to verify if "Moved value from thread" accurately reflects the code's behavior, especially thread ownership semantics.

    Reviewing code change

    • The string "String value from thread" is printed inside a thread, using a closure with move ||, indicating the string s is moved into the thread.

    Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it.

    Build grok-code

    As you can see, that's quite a lot of text for a simple yes/no question. Meanwhile, if it was possible to set a minimal verbosity in some way (in OpenCode session or settings), we could expect the output to be just:

    Yes, it's correct (fixing "thead" to "thread"). The value is moved to the thread and printed from it.

    Being able to make OpenCode output concise with some simple setting/option could be very useful in some usage scenarios
11. rserbitar commented on Jan 5, 2026

    

    rserbitar

    on Jan 5, 2026

    More actions

    Another call of the ability to see the raw tool output.

    👍React with 👍13Reacted by lteixeira-pcm, Falko, chriscarollo, Benjamin, Martin Honermeyer, 崔鹏飞 Cui Pengfei, Harshwardhan, Christian Kreiling, Arjun Pramanik, T. J. Moran and 3 more
12. dlecan commented on Jan 22, 2026

    

    dlecan

    on Jan 22, 2026

    More actions

    I need this command too, as documented https://opencode.ai/docs/tui/#details
13. github-actions commented on Mar 26, 2026

    

    github-actionsBot

    on Mar 26, 2026 – with GitHub Actions

    Contributor

    More actions

    To stay organized issues are automatically closed after 90 days of no activity. If the issue is still relevant please open a new one.
14. github-actions

    closed this as completedon Mar 26, 2026