Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
grok

grok

by cigenb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grok_wait

Wait for asynchronous subagent tasks to finish or timeout without canceling execution; retrieve results later using status.

Instructions

等待任务，超时或取消等待不停止执行；结果领取后仍可通过 status 重读。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "grok_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
timeoutNo
source_idNo可选的来源聊天 ID；Codex 自动取调用元数据，Claude 默认取启动时的会话 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that timeout or cancellation does not stop execution and results remain retrievable via status. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether any side effects occur, default timeout behavior, or what happens when ids are omitted.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the most important non-obvious behavior front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the ambiguity around parameters.

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?

For a wait tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the waiting target, timeout semantics, empty-ids behavior, or relationship to grok_collect.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the ids or timeout parameters. It mentions timeout behavior generically but does not specify units, defaults, or the semantics of waiting on multiple IDs.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the core action (wait for a task) and contrasts rereading via status, but it doesn't identify what is being waited on (the ids parameter) or distinguish itself clearly from grok_collect and grok_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to grok_collect, grok_status, or grok_spawn. The mention of status only explains post-collection rereading, not when to choose wait over collect.

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