wait_for_codeWaits for the next verification code to arrive at a line and returns it. Call this immediately BEFORE triggering the text, so nothing is missed. Returns timedOut: true if none arrives in time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lineId | Yes | The line's id, from list_lines. | |
| timeoutSeconds | No | How long to wait, up to 55. Defaults to 30. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the tool blocks and may return timedOut: true when nothing arrives. It does not say whether the returned code is consumed/drained from the line or how errors (e.g., an unknown lineId) manifest, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the ordering rule, then the failure signal. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a two-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what comes back (the code, or timedOut: true) and how to sequence the call. It omits edge-case behavior such as repeated codes or error handling, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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 lineId and timeoutSeconds both documented in the schema (including the 55s cap and 30s default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the indirect notion of a line and a timeout window, no new format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 and resource: it waits for the next verification code on a line and returns it. The blocking 'next code to arrive' framing implicitly separates it from latest_code, but the sibling is never named explicitly, which a 5 would require.
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 an explicit operational rule: 'Call this immediately BEFORE triggering the text, so nothing is missed,' which is genuinely actionable sequencing guidance. It does not, however, mention when to prefer latest_code instead or what to do after a timeout, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.