wait_for_answerLong-poll a question until it is answered or expires. Returns the state and, once answered, the chosen option value + label and the responder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Seconds to hold the request open (server-capped). | |
| question_id | Yes | Question id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Purpose-built PingRoom result with credential and account fields removed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the long-polling nature, the server-capped timeout, and the specific state/return behavior on answer. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no filler. The core action ('Long-poll a question until it is answered or expires') is front-loaded, and the return details are compactly appended. Every clause adds information.
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, the presence of a full output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is complete. It covers the waiting behavior, the termination conditions, and the key return fields. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both question_id and timeout already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the timeout cap and explains return values, which is not parameter semantics. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Long-poll') and resource ('a question'), clearly stating what the tool does: waits until the question is answered or expires. It also distinguishes itself from sibling wait_* tools by specifying the question context and return payload (state, option value + label, responder).
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when an agent needs to block until an answer arrives or the wait times out. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_question for non-blocking polling or exclude other wait_* tools, but the context is clear and no misleading guidance is present.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: broadcast, trigger_quick_action, create_handoff, ask_question, request_approval, and live_status can all deliver a ping or prompt to a human, and the wait_for_* family has five similar long-polling variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the update_quick_action/update_quick_actions pair and the activate_agent_inbox/handoff flow still create real selection ambiguity.
The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun conventions like create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and wait_for_, making the naming predictable and searchable. A few outliers — broadcast, connection_info, and live_status — break the pattern, and the live_status/get_live_status pair is less obvious than it could be.
40 tools is a heavy surface for one MCP server, even with a broad feature set spanning rooms, webhooks, quick actions, questions, approvals, handoffs, attachments, and live status. The count feels inflated by many narrow wait/get variants that could be consolidated or exposed through fewer, more composable operations.
Core workflows around questions, approvals, handoffs, webhooks, quick actions, and attachments are mostly covered with create/read/list/wait operations. However, the room lifecycle is missing obvious delete or leave operations, and approvals lack list/cancel capabilities, leaving notable gaps for an agent managing those resources.