wait_for_taskBlocks until a delegated test-writing task finishes or times out, then returns its status and latest steps; call it again while the task is still running.
Blocks until the task finishes or timeoutSeconds passes, then returns its status and recent: the latest steps (files the agent wrote, commands it ran, what it said). Call again while it is still running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| timeoutSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the key behavior annotations can't: the call blocks until completion or the timeout elapses, and then returns status plus recent activity. That is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. It omits details like the 600s ceiling on blocking time and whether a timeout result differs from a completion result.
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?
Two sentences, no waste. The blocking semantics and return contents come first, followed by the retry instruction — exactly the front-loading an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the status and `recent` contents. Combined with the retry guidance, an agent can call this correctly. Only the timeout edge case (what a timed-out return looks like vs. a completed one) is left unstated.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains that timeoutSeconds bounds the blocking wait, which is the parameter whose meaning matters most. taskId's role is left implicit (though obvious from context), and the default/limits are only in the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (blocks/waits), resource (task), and the exact return payload (status plus `recent` steps). The blocking-vs-polling framing lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_task_status and get_task_result without opening their schemas.
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?
Gives an explicit usage loop — 'Call again while it is still running' — which tells the agent exactly how to keep waiting after the timeout fires. It does not explicitly contrast with get_task_status/get_task_result or say when non-blocking polling is preferable, so it stops short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.