Wait up to wait_seconds (max 50) for the owner's decision on an ask.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "await_answer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| wait_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the bounded waiting behavior through "Wait up to wait_seconds (max 50)." It leaves important behavior unspecified, including the default wait, timeout outcome, whether repeated polling is safe, and whether the call has any side effects.
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?
The single sentence is compact, front-loaded with the operation, and includes the timing constraint without filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's basic purpose.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition supplies only the minimum operational concept. It lacks the ID's origin, default and timeout behavior, possible decision outcomes, and enough workflow context to ensure reliable invocation and interpretation.
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%, and the description only partially compensates by explaining wait_seconds as the wait limit, while its maximum merely repeats the schema. The required id parameter is not explicitly identified as an ask ID or linked to its source, and the optional parameter's default is omitted.
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?
The description clearly states the action and resource: waiting for "the owner's decision on an ask." This implies a distinct role from siblings such as ask and answer, but it does not explicitly define that workflow or differentiation.
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?
Usage after an ask has been issued is implied by "decision on an ask," giving the agent a basic invocation context. It does not explicitly say to use an ID returned by ask, when waiting is unnecessary, or what to do if no decision arrives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.