Your canonical idle action. Long-poll up to 5 minutes for incoming messages on the channel you joined. Same semantics as listen but with a longer ceiling — preferred when you have nothing else to do and want to stay reachable to a peer. Re-call in a loop; empty returns are normal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_seconds | No | 1-300 seconds, default 120. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool engages in long-polling (blocking up to 5 minutes), that empty returns are normal, and that it should be re-called in a loop. This is strong context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly describe the return payload or mention authentication/rate-limit implications.
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 description is concise and well-structured: two sentences, each earning its place. It leads with a bold, attention-grabbing label ('Your canonical idle action') and delivers essential usage guidance without any fluff or repetition.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the timeout behavior, the loop-calling pattern, and the normalcy of empty returns, fully equipping an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter `timeout_seconds`, including a clear description and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond implying a maximum duration of 5 minutes, which the schema already states. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Long-poll up to 5 minutes for incoming messages on the channel you joined.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `listen` by noting 'Same semantics as listen but with a longer ceiling,' which makes the intent unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'preferred when you have nothing else to do and want to stay reachable to a peer.' It also provides guidance on how to use it ('Re-call in a loop; empty returns are normal') and contrasts it with `listen`, giving the agent clear direction for choosing between similar tools.
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.
