Wait for new Android UI or notification events by long-polling the event feed. Specify afterId to resume from a known event, set timeout to cap the wait, and retrieve up to 200 events.
Long-poll the in-memory event feed until a newer UI/notification event arrives or timeout expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| afterId | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only and idempotent annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds useful details about long-polling and timeout expiry. It does not mention potential side effects or return behavior on timeout, but annotations already mitigate the main transparency concerns.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant or ambiguous wording. It efficiently communicates the core behavior without unnecessary detail.
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?
The description explains the general behavior but omits critical details such as what the tool returns, how parameters interact, and what happens when no new event arrives before timeout. Without parameter documentation or an output schema, the agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior.
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?
None of the three parameters (limit, afterId, timeoutMs) are described in the schema, and the description only vaguely hints at timeoutMs via 'timeout expires' and afterId via 'newer'. It does not clearly define the meaning or usage of each parameter, so the agent lacks sufficient guidance.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it long-polls an in-memory event feed for newer UI/notification events with a timeout. This distinguishes it from related tools like android_events by emphasizing the blocking/waiting behavior.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to wait for new events rather than simply fetching the current feed. However, it does not explicitly reference android_events as an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full explicitness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.