wait_for_idlePause automation until the UI stops changing, preventing interactions during animations or loading. Use after navigation or app launches to ensure stable elements.
Wait until the UI stops changing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poll | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a blocking wait until the UI is stable but says nothing about polling behavior, timeout handling, what happens if the timeout is reached, or whether device selection affects the wait. The presence of an output schema covers return values but not runtime behavior.
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?
The description is a single short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, the brevity leaves critical usage and behavioral details unstated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It omits parameter meanings, timeout behavior, and differentiation from sibling wait tools.
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?
There are 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. The meaning and effect of poll, device, and timeout must be inferred entirely from their names and default values.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Wait until the UI stops changing.' An agent can understand the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like wait_for_screen_change, wait_for_nodes, or wait_for, which appear to address similar waiting needs.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when idle waiting is appropriate, or how it differs from other wait-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.