nofax

Wait for Nofax human response

nofax_wait_for_response

Idempotent

Long-poll a request handle to retrieve a human decision. If pending, re-invoke with the same requestId; repeat until a terminal response or user cancellation.

Instructions

Long-poll a durable Nofax request for up to 240 seconds. If the result is pending, you MUST call this tool again with the same requestId. Repeat indefinitely until a terminal response is returned or the user explicitly changes/cancels the goal. Do not continue the guarded action while pending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	Yes	Durable request handle returned by a nofax_request_* tool.
`waitSeconds`	No	Maximum seconds to long-poll during this call; defaults to 240. A timeout still returns pending, never approval.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	Human free-text refinement when the terminal decision is refine.
`status`	Yes	Whether the human request is still pending or has reached a terminal response.
`decision`	No	Terminal human decision when resolved, such as allow, deny, refine, or an explicit choice value.
`mustWait`	No	Present and true while the request remains pending.
`requestId`	Yes	Durable Nofax request handle.
`instruction`	Yes	Safety-preserving instruction describing what the caller may do next.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.7Sep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / requestId / description

Added value: +"Durable request handle returned by a nofax_request_* tool."

addedInput schema / properties / waitSeconds / description

Added value: +"Maximum seconds to long-poll during this call; defaults to 240. A timeout still returns pending, never approval."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "decision": {
+      "description": "Terminal human decision when resolved, such as allow, deny, refine, or an explicit choice value.",
+      "maxLength": 80,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "instruction": {
+      "description": "Safety-preserving instruction describing what the caller may do next.",
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mustWait": {
+      "description": "Present and true while the request remains pending.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "requestId": {
+      "description": "Durable Nofax request handle.",
+      "maxLength": 84,
+      "minLength": 24,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Whether the human request is still pending or has reached a terminal response.",
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "resolved"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "description": "Human free-text refinement when the terminal decision is refine.",
+      "maxLength": 2000,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "requestId",
+    "instruction"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.1Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds critical behavioral details: the long-poll mechanism, the 240-second cap, the guarantee that a timeout still returns pending (never approval), and the requirement to re-invoke. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not disclose every edge case (e.g., behavior on request cancellation), but that is adequately covered by openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but includes all essential operational instructions (repeat behavior, do-not-continue) without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then explains the required pattern. Slightly more detail could be trimmed, but it is well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (which would describe terminal responses) and annotations covering idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly. It covers the polling loop, timeout behavior, and when to stop. The only omission is how to handle cancellation, but that is covered by the user-facing directive in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds the 'durable' qualifier for requestId and reiterates the timeout semantics for waitSeconds, but does not significantly enrich the meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('long-poll') and resource ('durable Nofax request'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nofax_get_request by emphasizing the blocking wait behavior. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit, actionable usage rules: it instructs the agent to call the tool again with the same requestId when pending, repeat indefinitely until terminal response, and avoid continuing the guarded action while pending. This is precise guidance on when and how to use the tool, including an explicit stop condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server