Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aparser-mcp

aparser-mcp

by izzipizzy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

Wait for task

wait_task

Poll a parsing task until completion or timeout, then retrieve its final state.

Instructions

Poll a task until it completes (or the timeout elapses). Returns the final state.

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": {
      "task_uid": "<task_uid>"
    },
    "name": "wait_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNoMax seconds to wait before giving up.
intervalNoSeconds between polls.
task_uidYesThe task id returned by add_task.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds key behavior not in the schema: polling until completion or timeout, and returning final state. However, with no annotations, more detail on side effects (none expected) or concurrency would help, but it's adequate for a simple poll.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with zero redundancy. Every word adds value: action (poll), condition (until complete or timeout), result (returns final state). Optimally front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description tells what is returned (final state) but not its structure. For a 3-parameter tool with simple behavior, this is minimally adequate but could be more informative about the return value format.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool polls a task until completion or timeout, with a specific verb (poll) and resource (task). It implies waiting behavior, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like task_state, so it's clear but not differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., task_state for a single check, or add_task to create a task). No conditions or exclusions provided.

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