Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Wait for document extraction

air_wait_for_document_extraction
Read-only

Wait for a document extraction source (sourcePid) to reach connected or error, up to timeoutMs, using exponential backoff; if time runs out, returns ready:false and can be called again.

Instructions

Wait until sourcePid reaches connected or error, up to timeoutMs. Uses exponential backoff. Returns ready:false with the last observed status if the wait budget runs out — call again with the same sourcePid to keep waiting. Requires projects:read.

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": {
      "projectPid": "<projectPid>",
      "sourcePid": "<sourcePid>"
    },
    "name": "air_wait_for_document_extraction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourcePidYes
timeoutMsNoDefault 600000ms; max 600000ms
projectPidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeoutMs / description
      Previous value: -"Default 600000ms"New value: +"Default 600000ms; max 600000ms"
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeoutMs / maximum
      Added value: +600000
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive/openWorld, and the description adds substantial extra behavior: exponential backoff, the ready:false return on budget exhaustion, the retry-preserving-same-sourcePid pattern, and the required projects:read scope. This is well beyond what structured fields convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the wait condition, then backoff, then timeout/retry, then the auth requirement. Every sentence adds distinct operational value with no filler.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the timeout return shape and retry semantics, and annotations cover the safety profile. It stops short of describing the success return or the full set of statuses, and projectPid remains unexplained.

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 33% (only timeoutMs documented), so the description must compensate. It explains sourcePid's role as the polled status target and restates the timeoutMs budget, but projectPid is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, leaving a material gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb (wait), resource (document extraction keyed by sourcePid), and terminal condition (connected or error). It does not differentiate itself from the analogous air_wait_for_assessment sibling, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives clear context (wait up to timeoutMs) and explicit retry guidance ('call again with the same sourcePid to keep waiting'), plus a permission prerequisite ('Requires projects:read'). It omits when-not-to-use and any alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools