Pause execution until the user sends their request from the overlay; if the status is pending, retry automatically to retrieve the completed note and page context.
사용자가 오버레이에서 Send를 누를 때까지 기다린다. 결과 status가 "pending"이면 아직 없음 → 다시 wait를 호출한다. payload.batches[].note만 사람의 요청이고 나머지는 페이지 데이터다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutSec | No | 기본값은 서버 설정(Claude Code 1800, 그 외 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals blocking behavior, the pending-status loop, and the meaning of payload.batches[].note. It omits timeout/error behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantive and useful.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the main action is front-loaded, the polling loop follows, and the payload interpretation rule is given last. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
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?
The core loop and payload interpretation are covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain non-pending statuses, timeout outcomes, or how this tool relates to siblings like status and close. Given the timeoutSec parameter, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
The only parameter, timeoutSec, is already fully described in the schema with minimum, maximum, and default behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 exactly what the tool does: it waits until the user presses Send in the overlay. The additional pending-status instruction clarifies that this is a blocking wait-for-user-action tool, not a general status-checking tool.
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?
It gives clear usage context: call wait to block for the user's Send action, and call wait again if the result status is 'pending'. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.