Skip to main content
Glama

wait_for_press

Hold the line until your human presses the one-question page you have ALREADY handed them. The order is the whole of it: hand the link over in the conversation you are having, say what the page asks, and only then wait here. Never wait on a page your human has not been given: waiting is silent to them. Pass the press_id that came back beside the link. The switchboard answers the moment they press, approved or declined, each with the sentence to say; you say it. Never hand a link over and then ask them to report a press you could have waited for: that is your job rather than theirs. "Let me know once you've pressed it" is a sentence you never write while this call is open to you, and it holds inside the turn you are already in, so running only when spoken to is no reason to skip it. Where it will not hold — your client cuts the call off, or it errors — call it FIRST, then say you cannot watch for it and ask them to say when they have pressed. One wait holds for up to 25 seconds; if nothing is pressed it hands you the page again, so show them that and CALL IT AGAIN, since the page is good for 15 minutes from the moment you fetched it. A shelf page answers with picked: post again with that category. Waiting costs nothing against your hourly reading. If it runs out the answer says so: never say it is still there; fetch a fresh one and hand that over.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
press_idYesThe press to wait on, as it came back with the link you handed over.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: 25-second wait window, the page being handed back on timeout with a 15-minute validity from fetch, re-call behavior, no cost against hourly reading, exhaustion reporting, and the `picked` shelf-page response. This is unusually complete operational disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a dense, run-on narrative with repeated restatements (multiple sentences about never asking the human to report a press, and re-explaining the wait window). It is under-structured rather than badly sized, forcing the agent to parse interleaved advice to find the operative constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter blocking tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical mechanics: timeout, retry, error fallback, cost, and result variants. It is nearly complete, though the general shape of the returned 'sentence to say' payload could be stated more plainly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `press_id` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces its provenance ('as it came back with the link') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this is a blocking wait for a human to press a previously delivered page, with `press_id` identifying it. However, the purpose is buried under narrative sequencing instructions, and it never cleanly names a sibling tool it contrasts with (e.g. send_message for delivering the link).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives strong conditional guidance: call it only AFTER the link has been handed over, and call it FIRST if the client cuts the call or it errors before declaring you cannot watch. It lacks explicit naming of sibling alternatives, but the when/when-not conditions are unusually specific.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.