Skip to main content
Glama

Wait for review decisions

board_wait
Read-onlyIdempotent

Waits for a person to approve or send back the cards you handed to review on this board, and returns each decision with the reviewer's note. It returns as soon as there is a decision after since, or after timeout_seconds with none. Call it after moving work to review instead of polling board_read. Pass next_since from the previous reply to continue where you left off; timeout_seconds 0 checks without waiting. A card sent back to you is marked as picked up, so the reviewer sees you got it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoWhose hand-offs to watch. Defaults to this API key's name.
sinceNoISO time to look after. Default: the last 24 hours.
doc_idYesThe board's document id, as returned by board_create or nodiom_list_docs.
timeout_secondsNoHow long to wait for a decision. Default 30, at most 45.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextNo
decisionsYes
next_sinceYesPass this as since next time.
waited_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "decisions": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": false,
      +        "properties": {
      +          "at": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "by": {
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "card_id": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "decision": {
      +            "enum": [
      +              "approved",
      +              "sent_back"
      +            ],
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "note": {
      +            "description": "What the reviewer said.",
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "now_in": {
      +            "description": "The column the card is in now.",
      +            "type": [
      +              "string",
      +              "null"
      +            ]
      +          },
      +          "title": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          }
      +        },
      +        "required": [
      +          "card_id",
      +          "title",
      +          "decision",
      +          "by",
      +          "at",
      +          "now_in",
      +          "note"
      +        ],
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "next": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "next_since": {
      +      "description": "Pass this as since next time.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "waited_seconds": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "decisions",
      +    "next_since"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations don't: it blocks up to timeout_seconds, returns on first decision after since, marks sent-back cards as picked up, and enables cursor continuation. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error conditions, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

Front-loaded with what it does, followed by return conditions, guidance, and parameter semantics; four sentences each carry useful information, though the pickup note could be trimmed without loss.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns; it covers blocking behavior, timing, continuation, and the pickup side-effect. Minor gaps like failure modes or concurrency are not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by clarifying how 'since'/next_since drives continuation and that timeout_seconds 0 means a non-blocking check, plus the side-effect on sent-back cards that affects interpretation of results.

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?

States a specific verb (waits) and resource (review decisions on a board), and distinguishes itself from the obvious alternative by naming board_read and explaining it replaces polling.

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?

Explicitly says to call it after moving work to review and instead of polling board_read, explains timeout_seconds 0 as a non-blocking check, and describes continuation via next_since. Alternatives and timing conditions are fully specified.

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.