Wait up to timeout_seconds (1-50, default 45) for a task and return its latest status in the get_task shape. Some videos take several minutes: keep calling wait_for_task until status is success, failed, or canceled. Task results are persisted and never lost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is met. The description adds real value beyond them: the polling-until-terminal-state contract, the timeout blocking behavior, and the reassurance that results are persisted and never lost.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and timeout, then the polling loop, then the persistence reassurance. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly names the return shape. With annotations covering safety and the polling contract explained, it is nearly complete; the only soft spot is not stating what is returned when the timeout elapses without a terminal status.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains timeout_seconds semantics (wait up to that long; 1-50, default 45), though the range/default merely restate schema constraints, and task_id is only implied by 'for a task'. Partial compensation, not full.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Wait ... for a task and return its latest status') and specifies the return shape matches get_task. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the get_task sibling (immediate vs blocking), so an agent must infer which to pick.
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?
Gives explicit operational guidance: keep calling until status is success, failed, or canceled, with the rationale that some videos take minutes. It does not name get_task as the non-blocking alternative, so the when-to-use-this-vs-sibling question is only implied.
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.