ppdm-mcp-server

poll_until_complete

Polls a PPDM activity until it reaches a terminal state (SUCCEEDED, FAILED, or CANCELED) and returns the final activity record. Use after trigger_backup to await backup completion.

Instructions

Poll a PPDM activity until it reaches a terminal state (SUCCEEDED, FAILED, CANCELED). Returns the final activity record. Use after trigger_backup to await completion.

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": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "poll_until_complete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`activity_id`	Yes	PPDM activity ID to poll
`timeout_mins`	No	Max wait time in minutes (default 60)
`interval_secs`	No	Poll interval in seconds (default 15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blocking poll-until-terminal semantics and the return value, but omits key behavior: what happens when timeout_mins elapses (error vs. returning the current non-terminal record), and whether this blocks the caller.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return value then usage hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 3-parameter polling tool with no output schema, stating that it returns the final activity record is sufficient on the return side. The one meaningful gap relative to a long-running poll tool is the timeout-expiry behavior, which an agent would need to handle errors correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so timeout_mins and interval_secs are already documented with defaults and activity_id is required. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for these parameters, matching 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?

States a specific verb (poll) and resource (a PPDM activity), enumerates the terminal states it waits for (SUCCEEDED, FAILED, CANCELED), and says it returns the final activity record. An agent can distinguish this blocking wait from a one-shot status check without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says "Use after trigger_backup to await completion," giving a concrete when-to-use trigger tied to a sibling workflow. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. when a single status read suffices) or what to do on timeout, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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