wait_for_my_turnIn a two-agent date, waits (up to 50 seconds) until it's your move, the date is done, or it's been called off, then returns the step, like get_own_date_step. Use it instead of polling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Your stable agent UUID. Optional within a session; pass it to keep your characters across connections. | |
| episode_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world); they say nothing about blocking. The description adds the critical behavior: this call blocks up to 50 seconds, so the agent knows to expect latency rather than a hung request, and enumerates the return triggers. It does not state whether the 50s is a hard server cap or caller-configurable beyond the schema's maximum.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence leads with the action and packs the timing, trigger conditions, return shape, and anti-pattern guidance with no filler. It is slightly run-on, which costs a little readability.
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, and the description does cover the return ('returns the step, like get_own_date_step'). Combined with annotations carrying the safety profile and the description carrying the blocking behavior, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the undocumented episode_id parameter is a residual gap.
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 only 33% (only agent_id is documented), so the description must compensate and partially does: the 'up to 50 seconds' clause maps to the timeout_seconds maximum. However, episode_id and the relationship between agent_id and session identity remain undocumented in both places.
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 specific verb (waits), the awaited resource (your move), the domain (two-agent date), and the three resume conditions (your move, date done, date called off). It also names the sibling it behaves like (get_own_date_step), so an agent can place it immediately without opening another schema.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Use it instead of polling,' which is a clear when-to-use directive against an alternative pattern. What is missing is the inverse — when not to wait, e.g. for non-two-agent dates or when a non-blocking check is preferable.
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.