cc-agent

wait_for_job

Waits for a job to reach a terminal state (done, failed, cancelled, etc.) or timeout. Returns final status and score, avoiding polling loops.

Instructions

Block until a job reaches a terminal state (done/failed/cancelled/rejected/interrupted) or the timeout expires. Returns the final status and score. Preferred over polling get_job_status in a loop. For non-MCP coordinators: subscribe to Redis pub/sub channel cca:job:done:{job_id} for instant zero-copy notification — the payload is JSON with fields: job_id, status, score, score_source, finished_at, exit_code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Job ID to wait for
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum seconds to wait (default 300)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains blocking behavior, terminal states, timeout, and return values. Could be more explicit about what happens on timeout (e.g., returns status 'timeout'), but still transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three concise sentences: purpose, return value, and alternative for non-MCP coordinators. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given tool's simplicity, description covers all needed context: behavior, return, usage guidance, and alternative. No output schema needed as return is described verbally.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context by explaining how the parameters are used (blocking behavior, timeout expiration), enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it blocks until job reaches terminal state or timeout, and returns final status and score. It distinguishes from sibling get_job_status by explicitly stating it's preferred over polling in a loop.

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?

Explicitly says 'Preferred over polling get_job_status in a loop', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also suggests an alternative for non-MCP coordinators via Redis pub/sub.

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