Wait for an agent's next reply or until the agent stops after sending a message. Block until a transcript entry appears or a timeout elapses.
Block until the next assistant-ish transcript entry after send, the agent stops running, or timeout. Does not use MCP Tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| after_seq | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds that this call blocks and that it ends on a transcript entry, agent stop, or timeout. The note 'Does not use MCP Tasks' is a meaningful implementation detail an agent may need. It still does not say what is returned or how timeout interacts with the block.
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 short clauses, with the blocking behavior and termination conditions front-loaded. Minimal waste, though 'assistant-ish' is imprecise vocabulary that costs a little clarity.
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 should explain the return value, which it does not. It adequately covers the blocking lifecycle but leaves parameters and results undocumented for a tool whose entire purpose is to suspend execution.
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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'after send' weakly connects after_seq to a prior send, but timeout bounds (1-120s), session_id, and agent_id semantics are unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 action ('Block until...') and enumerates the three conditions that end the block, which tells an agent exactly what the call accomplishes. The 'assistant-ish transcript entry' phrasing is jargon and the relationship to grokbot_send is only implied, but the core purpose is clear.
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 'after send' hints that this is used following grokbot_send to wait for a response, and the termination conditions imply the intended call pattern. However, there is no explicit guidance to prefer this over polling grokbot_status or reading grokbot_history, so the alternative-selection logic is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.