Wait for an async simulation job to reach a terminal state. Returns the final result when the job completes, or the terminal status when it fails, is cancelled, or times out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | UUID of the async job | |
| timeout_seconds | No | Maximum wall-clock time to wait before returning a timed_out response. | |
| poll_interval_seconds | No | Delay between status checks while the job is still queued or running. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool waits (blocks), returns final result or terminal status (including timeout). The schema already documents timeout and poll interval; the description adds context on the return conditions.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (final result or terminal status). It covers the main behavioral aspects (wait, timeout, cancellation) and is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings.
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 100% coverage with each parameter described (job_id, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 action ('Wait for an async simulation job') and the resource ('async simulation job'). It specifies that it returns the final result or terminal status, distinguishing it from non-blocking siblings like get_job_status or get_job_result.
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 implies that this tool is used after submitting an async job to block until completion. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from sibling names and the description's emphasis on 'terminal state' provide adequate guidance.
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.
