Sora Commander

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

await_command_result

Wait for an existing Owner decision or job using a pending_id, without resubmitting or running it again. Use this after a prior review or command wait when a request is already pending.

Instructions

Wait for an existing Owner decision/job, without another execution.

Use after an earlier run_command_wait or REVIEW when you already have pending_id. Wait for that same Owner decision and job without new execution, approval, or submission. Timeout is not permission to retry.

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": {
      "pending_id": "<pending_id>"
    },
    "name": "await_command_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pending_id`	Yes	Opaque ID returned by a prior Owner review; required to observe the SAME request, never fabricate or resubmit.
`wait_seconds`	No	Bounded observation time in seconds, 0 to 90 (default 50); continue existing pending ID after timeout.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no new execution, approval, or submission occurs, and that a timeout is not a retry signal. It stops short of saying what happens with an expired or unknown pending_id, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage condition, then the critical caveat. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the two parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description covers the non-obvious semantics (no re-execution, timeout behavior) but leaves error/expiry handling unstated for a tool whose whole purpose is resuming a pending request.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both pending_id and wait_seconds are already fully documented, including the 0-90 bound and default. The description only reinforces that pending_id refers to the same prior request; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Wait for an existing Owner decision/job') and immediately scopes it with 'without another execution', which separates it from run_command_wait and run_command. An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use after an earlier run_command_wait or REVIEW when you already have pending_id') and an explicit prohibition ('Timeout is not permission to retry'). Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the alternative path named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.