google-jules-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create and Wait for Jules Session

jules_execute_and_wait

Run a coding task in a new Jules session and wait for completion. Returns the final state, summary, and pull request details, with progress tracking and timeout protection.

Instructions

Create a new Jules session and immediately wait/poll for its completion. Automatically tracks progress, emits progress notifications, and returns a unified payload with final state, summary, and PR details upon resolution. Bounded by a wait limit to prevent timeouts.

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": {
      "repoOwner": "<repoOwner>",
      "repoName": "<repoName>",
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "jules_execute_and_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No	Optional custom title for the session
`branch`	No	Starting branch name (default: main)	main
`prompt`	Yes	Detailed task description - be specific about what needs to be done
`repoName`	Yes	GitHub repository name
`repoOwner`	Yes	GitHub repository owner (username or organization)
`autoApprove`	No	Automatically approve the execution plan (default: true). Set false to manually approve with jules_approve_plan
`autoCreatePR`	No	Automatically create pull request when task completes (default: false)
`maxWaitSeconds`	No	Maximum time to wait/poll in seconds (default: 60, max: 300)
`includeActivities`	No	Number of recent activities to include in the output (default: 5)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.1Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided; the description carries that weight and discloses progress tracking, automatic notifications, a bounded wait to prevent infinite pending, and the return bundling of final status, summary, and PR details. Lacks explicit permission or side-effect disclosure, but for this tool type the non-destructive hint is not necessary.

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?

A single, dense paragraph is packed with meaningful details—not a blank 'summary'; it carries exactly the substance of what is needed. No wasted words, although it is a long sentence it is acceptable given complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It has 9 parameters, a modest but non-trivial tool; the description covers lifecycle (creation, return, progress, output), wait limits, inputs, outputs; the output schema is absent, but the description of the returned payload (final state, summary, PR details) completes it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Input schema descriptions are rich: each property has an explanation, especially prompt details, defaults, max, etc. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema but the schema already provides near-total coverage of the parameters; to that score the description provides value in explaining the purpose of select parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific action ('Create a new Jules session') and resource ('wait/poll for its completion'), clearly distinguishing this from a basic creation tool by emphasizing the wait and return behavior.

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?

Provides concrete context (polling, progress notifications, PR creation, wait limits) and describes when it should be used (for synchronous task completion), but does not explicitly name competing/alternative tools or spell out when not to use it.

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