delaySleep N seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Response body | |
| status | Yes | HTTP status code | |
| content_type | Yes | Content-Type header |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "seconds": 2
+ },
+ {
+ "seconds": 5
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Response body",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "content_type": {
+ "description": "Content-Type header",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "content_type",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only 'Sleep N seconds,' which does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., blocking nature, precision). Minimal value beyond annotations, but no contradiction.
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?
Extremely concise: two words. Front-loaded with the essential action. No superfluous content.
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 tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (not shown) and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits details like blocking behavior, return value, or precision. Adequate for a minimal tool but leaves gaps for an agent needing complete understanding.
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 coverage is 0% for the 'seconds' parameter. The description implies N is the number of seconds but does not specify range, data format (e.g., float allowed), or unit beyond 'seconds.' Examples in schema provide some context, but description insufficiently compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.
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?
Description 'Sleep N seconds' clearly states the verb (sleep) and resource (time delay), distinguishing it from all sibling tools as uniquely performing a time delay. No ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list includes many tools but none are similar, yet the description provides no context for appropriate usage scenarios.
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.