Wait until the message arrives and has been analysed, then summarise it.
Blocks rather than returning "not ready yet": an agent told to poll writes a
sleep loop and usually gives up before the analysis finishes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool blocks rather than returning 'not ready yet', which is a critical non-obvious behavior that directly affects how an agent should use it. It does not mention timeout failure behavior, but the main blocking trait is clearly disclosed.
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 short and front-loaded: the core behavior is stated first, and the second sentence explains why blocking matters. It is concise, though 'then summarise it' could be clearer and slightly weakens the precision.
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?
The description covers the main purpose and the blocking advantage, and an output schema exists so return details do not need to be spelled out. However, it leaves parameter semantics unexplained and does not mention timeout outcomes, which are relevant for a tool with a timeout parameter and no annotation coverage.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'slug' refers to or how timeout_seconds behaves. It implies the tool waits on a message/report but does not connect the parameters to that behavior, leaving the agent to infer their meanings.
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 identifies the tool as a blocking wait: it waits until the message has arrived and been analysed, then summarises it. It conveys the main purpose distinctly from the sibling get_report/get_message_source tools, though 'summarise it' is slightly ambiguous about what exactly is summarised.
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 gives a strong use signal: use this instead of writing a polling loop, because polling tends to give up too early. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavioral contrast with polling is well articulated.
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.