OpenSwitchboard

Wait for a press

wait_for_press

Read-only

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "press_id": "<press_id>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_press"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`press_id`	Yes	The press to wait on, as it came back with the link you handed over.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world — all consistent with a blocking wait), the description discloses the key behaviors an agent could not otherwise know: a 25-second wait ceiling, that a timeout returns the page again requiring a re-call, that the page is valid for 15 minutes from fetch, that a shelf page answers with `picked` and needs a follow-up post, and that waiting does not consume the hourly reading budget.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The ordering constraint is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct operational content (retry, shelf pages, quota). It is nonetheless dense and repetitive in places — the 'never ask them to report instead of waiting' point is made twice, and the sentence about running only when spoken to is convoluted.

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 single-param blocking tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, timeout duration, retry loop, page lifetime, shelf-page branch, error fallback, and cost. Nothing required for correct invocation or for interpreting a timeout is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single press_id parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description adds provenance meaning by insisting on the id that 'came back beside the link you handed over', which links the parameter to a specific prior step rather than just its type.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource (hold/wait until the human presses the page) and implicitly separates this from siblings such as check_in or collect_messages by tying it to a press_id already handed over. However, the core action statement is embedded in a long protocol, and the term 'one-question page' is tool-specific jargon that takes a clause to establish.

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 gives explicit preconditions (only after the link has been handed over; pass the press_id returned alongside it), an explicit prohibition with rationale ('waiting is silent to them', never wait on a page not given), an explicit anti-pattern to avoid ('Let me know once you've pressed it'), and a fallback path when the wait cannot hold (call it FIRST, then tell the user you cannot watch).

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

All OpenSwitchboard tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.