Poll for new QQ bot events by returning buffered matches immediately or waiting for gateway/webhook events within a configurable timeout, cancellable when the client aborts.
Long-poll for new events (default 30s, max 5min). Returns buffered matches immediately, otherwise waits for a gateway/webhook event. Cancelled when the client aborts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| peek | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| types | No | ||
| since_seq | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: default 30s and 5min max wait, immediate return of buffered matches, otherwise blocking until a gateway/webhook event arrives, and cancellation on client abort. These are non-obvious latency and lifecycle semantics that an agent must plan around. It stops short of 5 because the return shape/cursor behavior is never described.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the long-poll framing, then timing, then return behavior, then cancellation. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say more about what a returned event looks like and how since_seq interacts with returned sequence numbers. The blocking/timeout/cancellation story is complete, but cursor and peek semantics — the parts most likely to cause misuse in a long-poll loop — are absent.
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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only explains timeout_ms (default 30s, max 5min). The semantically loaded parameters, especially since_seq (cursor) and peek (presumably non-consuming read), are left entirely undocumented in both schema and 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 verb and resource ('Long-poll for new events') with the key distinguishing trait — blocking long-poll rather than a snapshot poll — which implicitly separates it from the sibling poll_events. It does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 blocking nature and timeouts imply when this tool fits (waiting for a gateway/webhook event rather than fetching a snapshot), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of poll_events when...' routing and no stated preconditions. Usage is inferred rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.