Elicitly Pro

Wait for a decision

elicit_await

Read-only

Long-poll for a decision on a pending elicitation: blocks until the request is submitted, declined, canceled, or expired — or until the server's polling window closes. Returns { status } (pending | submitted | declined | canceled | expired | consumed); a pending return means the window elapsed, so call again to keep waiting. Prefer this over polling elicit_status in a loop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`elicitationId`	Yes	The `elicitationId` returned by the creating tool (elicit_approval, elicit_selection, or elicit_proposal).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	The request's state when the wait ended; `pending` means the polling window elapsed undecided — call again to keep waiting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / elicitationId / description

Added value: +"The `elicitationId` returned by the creating tool (elicit_approval, elicit_selection, or elicit_proposal)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "status": {
+      "description": "The request's state when the wait ended; `pending` means the polling window elapsed undecided — call again to keep waiting.",
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "submitted",
+        "declined",
+        "canceled",
+        "expired",
+        "consumed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the blocking long-poll behavior, the polling-window close condition, and the meaning of each returned status. Even with `readOnlyHint: true`, it adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotation by explaining what the caller should do on a `pending` result.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, immediately states the return shape, and closes with a practical usage recommendation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is complete: it covers the blocking semantics, all possible statuses, timeout behavior, and the recommended alternative. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter `elicitationId` with a description that explains where to obtain it. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but none is needed given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('long-poll') and resource ('decision on a pending elicitation'), and enumerates the possible terminal statuses. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool `elicit_status` by explicitly recommending against polling in a loop.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: for waiting on a pending elicitation rather than polling `elicit_status` in a loop. It also explains that a `pending` return means the polling window elapsed and the caller should invoke the tool again, giving clear operational guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Elicitly Pro tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles in the elicitation lifecycle, but elicit_approval's form mode heavily overlaps with elicit_form, and elicit_confirm is explicitly a wrapper over elicit_form, creating real selection ambiguity. Status, await, result, cancel, and history are clearly separated, so the confusion is limited to a couple of closely related tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the elicit_ prefix and use snake_case, which makes the namespace predictable and easy to scan. However, the second token mixes nouns (approval, form, proposal, status) with verbs (await, cancel, confirm, ping), and elicit_doctor is a non-obvious metaphor, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is within the ideal scope for a specialized elicitation server: creation variants, status polling, blocking wait, result retrieval, cancellation, history, and diagnostic helpers all have a place. The count feels purposeful rather than padded, and it fits the domain without becoming unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: agents can create varied elicitations, check status, block on decisions, fetch results, cancel pending requests, and review history, plus diagnostic and connectivity tools. The main gap is the inability to update or extend a pending elicitation after creation, but agents can work around this by canceling and recreating.

Resources

Need Help?