Advance the simulation to a specified UTC time by polling every 0.1 seconds until the target moment is reached, enabling precise synchronization of ground station operations.
Wait until the simulation reaches a specific UTC time. Polls the simulation every 0.1 seconds until the target time is reached.
Args: target_time_iso: Target UTC time in ISO format (e.g., "2025-09-15T17:30:00Z")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_time_iso | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses the polling interval (every 0.1 seconds) and the blocking 'wait until target time is reached' behavior. It does not mention timeout or behavior for past times, but the core execution model is clearly conveyed.
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 brief and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose statement, one sentence on behavior, and a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential details: purpose, behavior, and parameter format. It could mention edge cases like past times or infinite waiting, but these are reasonable omissions given the tool's simplicity.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It defines target_time_iso as 'Target UTC time in ISO format' and provides a concrete example ('2025-09-15T17:30:00Z'), adding all necessary meaning beyond the bare schema type and required flag.
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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Wait until the simulation reaches a specific UTC time.' This is not a tautology of the name and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_time, which reads the current time rather than waiting.
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 context of use is clear: it blocks the simulation until a target time, with polling every 0.1 seconds. It implies the agent should use this instead of manually polling get_current_time, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.