Wait on a job by ID for up to 50 seconds. Get a brief status update, or the completion receipt and log tail when the job finishes.
Wait up to ~45 s on a job. One line, short if nothing changed; receipt and log tail when done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job id | |
| timeout_s | No | Seconds, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the blocking behavior, the approximate maximum wait, and two distinct return shapes ('one line, short if nothing changed' versus 'receipt and log tail when done'). It stops short of saying what is returned if the timeout elapses without a state change.
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?
Two compact clauses with the wait scope front-loaded and the outcome variants second; there is no filler and every clause conveys information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return values, and it covers the timeout dimension. The main remaining gap is the timeout-expiry case, which an agent would need to interpret the 'short if nothing changed' result 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces timeout_s with '~45 s', and that figure is slightly at odds with the schema's stated max of 50. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Wait ... on a job') plus a rough duration, so an agent knows this blocks until progress or completion. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like firefighter_status or firefighter_job, which also inspect a job.
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 phrase 'Wait up to ~45 s on a job' implies the use case (blocking until a job advances or finishes) versus one-shot polling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.