Waits for a background job to finish, up to wait_s seconds (max 300), then returns its result for forensic analysis workflows.
Wait up to wait_s seconds (max 300) for a background job and return its result when done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| wait_s | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the waiting behavior and a maximum wait time (300 seconds), which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not explain what happens if the job is not done after wait_s (timeout behavior), whether the call is read-only, or how errors are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and a key constraint.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and wait constraint. However, it omits important context such as what job_id refers to, what happens on timeout, and the format or content of the returned result.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining that wait_s is in seconds and capped at 300. It adds no meaning for job_id beyond the schema title, leaving the identifier's source and format unspecified.
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 (wait), resource (background job), and outcome (return result), making it clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like job_status or job_cancel, though the name and description imply distinct functionality.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage after starting a background job, but does not mention alternatives such as job_status for polling without waiting, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.