A
licenseB
qualityD
maintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides a simple sleep/wait tool, useful for adding delays between operations such as waiting between API calls or testing eventually consistent systems.
1
16 npm
22
ISC
MCP-Wait
MCP-Espera
Un servidor MCP simple que proporciona una funcionalidad de espera para pausar hasta que finalicen otras tareas.
Características
Esperar un número específico de segundos
Informes de progreso durante la espera
Fácil de usar a través de CLI o como servidor HTTP con SSE
Related MCP server: async-bash-mcp
Integración con Claude Desktop/Cursor/Chatwise
Para utilizar con Claude Desktop, agregue lo siguiente a su configuración:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mcp-wait": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@automation-ai-labs/mcp-wait"
],
"env": {
"TRANSPORT_TYPE": "stdio"
}
}
}
}Instalación
Instalación mediante herrería
Para instalar Wait for Claude Desktop automáticamente a través de Smithery :
npx -y @smithery/cli install @automation-ai-labs/mcp-wait --client claudeInstalación manual
npm installUso
Pruebas de CLI
Pruebe el servidor directamente usando la CLI de FastMCP:
npm run devEsto iniciará el servidor y le permitirá interactuar con él a través de la CLI.
Inspeccionar con MCP Inspector
Inspeccione el servidor utilizando la interfaz web de MCP Inspector:
npm run inspectIniciar como servidor SSE
Inicie el servidor con soporte SSE para integrarse con otras aplicaciones:
TRANSPORT_TYPE=sse PORT=8080 npm startHerramienta de espera
El servidor proporciona una herramienta wait sencilla que acepta un parámetro seconds :
seconds: El número de segundos a esperar (0-300)
Ejemplo:
{
"seconds": 5
}Esto esperará 5 segundos e informará el progreso durante la espera.
Available Tools
1 toolwaitB
Wait for a specified number of seconds, useful for waiting for other tasks to finish
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seconds | Yes | The number of seconds to wait (0-300) |
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's utility but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as whether the wait is blocking, if it can be interrupted, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description is somewhat adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., blocking nature, error handling) and output (no output schema provided), which are important for a wait tool with no annotations.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'seconds' fully documented in the schema (type, range, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('wait') and resource ('seconds'), and explains its utility ('useful for waiting for other tasks to finish'). It distinguishes the tool's function effectively, though it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings (none provided).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('waiting for other tasks to finish'), providing some guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not offer explicit alternatives, exclusions, or detailed prerequisites, leaving room for clearer operational guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
wait
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it to. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.
Naming Consistency5/5
Since there is only one tool, it inherently follows a consistent naming pattern with itself. The name 'wait' is straightforward and matches the verb_noun style, though no pattern can be assessed across multiple tools.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and suggests a very narrow scope. While the tool is useful for waiting, it lacks companion tools for broader task management or integration, making the server feel incomplete.
Completeness1/5
The server's purpose appears to be related to task management or timing, but with only a 'wait' tool, there are significant gaps. There are no tools for starting, monitoring, or canceling tasks, making the surface severely incomplete for any practical workflow.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for the FFmpeg Micro video transcoding API — create, monitor, download transcodes.
MCP server for progressive tool usage at any scale (see https://klavis.ai)
Hosted MCP server for task-first delegation to remote workstations and workers.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for spawning and managing bash commands asynchronously. Run multiple shell commands in parallel and check their progress independently.6MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA minimal MCP server that lets AI agents pause for a specified duration before resuming their workflow. Useful for polling patterns like waiting for PR approval or file creation.16 npmMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA minimal MCP server that gives AI agents the ability to pause execution by waiting a specified number of seconds, with support for local and AWS AgentCore deployment.-