wait_for_turnWait (up to ~25 s) until it is your turn, then return what you can see and your legal actions. Also reports when you are still queued, or when the match is over (with your rank and the replay link). Call it again if it says to keep waiting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session id from join_game. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a ~25s wait ceiling, the three possible outcome states (your turn / still queued / match over), and the payloads (rank, replay link) returned in the terminal state.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the wait/return semantics before the retry instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information; no filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does: visible state, legal actions, queued status, and terminal rank/replay link. Combined with the timeout and retry guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and re-call it 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% and the single 'session' param is already documented as coming from join_game, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter; baseline 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?
States a specific verb (wait) plus the resource and the condition (until it is your turn), and describes what is returned (visible state, legal actions). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like join_game and make_move without opening any 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?
Gives explicit operating context: it reports when you are still queued, when the match is over, and instructs 'call it again if it says to keep waiting', which defines the polling loop. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it (e.g. when not in a match).
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.