Touchpoint

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for_app

Polls the application list until a specified app appears or disappears. Use after launching or closing an application to synchronize actions.

Instructions

Wait for an application to appear or disappear.

Polls the application list until the app is found (or gone).
Use after launching or closing an application.

Args:
    app: Application name to wait for (e.g. "Firefox", "Slack").
    timeout: Maximum seconds to wait (default 10).
    gone: If true, wait for the app to DISAPPEAR instead.

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": {
      "app": "<app>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`gone`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 discloses polling behavior, timeout, and the 'gone' parameter effect, but lacks details like polling frequency or error handling. Adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is well-structured with a brief overview followed by parameter documentation. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the key info is front-loaded.

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?

Everything essential for a simple wait tool is covered, but given an output schema exists, the description could mention return type (e.g., boolean success). Minor gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: 'app' with examples, 'timeout' with default and unit, 'gone' with semantic meaning. Adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool polls for an application to appear or disappear, with specific verb 'wait for' and resource 'application'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wait_for' and 'wait_for_window' by focusing on application lifecycle.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use after launching or closing an application', providing direct context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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