Monitors a sandbox endpoint and blocks until a webhook request arrives, enabling agents to test webhook delivery and capture incoming payloads.
Wait for a request to arrive at a sandbox endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | How long to wait, for example "30s" | 30s |
| endpointSlug | Yes | The endpoint slug to monitor | |
| pollInterval | No | Interval between polls, for example "500ms" or "1s" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little: it does not say whether the call blocks until a request arrives, what happens when no request arrives before the timeout (error vs. empty result), or whether a maximum wait applies. For a blocking/polling tool these are exactly the traits an agent needs.
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?
A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than optimal packing of information.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain return behavior and timeout semantics, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what a successful wait yields (the request object? a count?) or how failure is signalled.
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 100% and the schema already gives examples for timeout ('30s') and pollInterval ('500ms' or '1s'), plus a default of 30s. The description adds no syntax, range, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('wait for a request') and scopes it to a sandbox endpoint, which is clearly distinct from immediate-read siblings like list_requests and get_request. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying how it differs from wait_for_connection.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an existing endpoint), and no mention of the alternative of polling list_requests. The usage context is left entirely to inference from the verb 'wait'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.