Block until a task reaches a terminal state or new events arrive, then return its current view. Use it to poll task progress without resubmitting work.
Wait for task events or a terminal state, then return the same task view.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_sec | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that by stating it blocks until events or a terminal state and returns the same task view, though it omits any timeout/expiry behavior despite exposing a timeout_sec parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler that states the blocking behavior and the return value up front. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a blocking wait tool the timeout/limit/cursor semantics are essential and entirely absent. With 0% schema coverage and only one vague sentence, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 (limit, cursor, task_id, timeout_sec), yet the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what limit/cursor paginate, nor how timeout_sec governs the wait, leaving the highest-value parameter undocumented.
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 (wait) and resource (task) and clarifies it returns the same task view as a normal read. The 'wait ... for events or a terminal state' phrasing implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_task, but it never names that sibling, so the distinction relies on inference.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_task as the non-blocking alternative, and no conditions or exclusions. An agent can loosely infer this is the blocking variant, but the description leaves the choice between polling and waiting entirely unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.