Skip to main content
Glama

Handoff Wait

handoff_wait

Pauses automation until the user clicks I'M DONE or the timeout expires; use after starting a live human handoff to capture the resulting page state.

Instructions

Block until user clicks I'M DONE (or timeout). Pair with handoff_start.

Ex: handoff_wait('t0', 120) → {"completed":true,"current_url":"...","current_title":"..."}

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": {
      "tab_id": "<tab_id>"
    },
    "name": "handoff_wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tab_idYes
timeout_sNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the blocking behavior and that a timeout exists, and the example shows a completed response shape, but it does not explain what happens on timeout, error conditions, or whether the handoff must be started first.

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?

The description is front-loaded and compact: one core sentence plus a compact example. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description covers the central blocking handoff concept. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, it leaves important operational details unstated, especially timeout outcomes and tab prerequisites.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for two undocumented parameters. The example handoff_wait('t0', 120) only positionally hints that tab_id is a tab identifier and timeout_s is a duration, without defining valid tab_id sources, timeout units, default behavior, or required state.

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 states a specific action: block until the user clicks "I'M DONE" or the timeout expires, and it notes pairing with handoff_start. This is clear and distinguishes it from automated waits, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like wait_for, wait_for_text, or request_user_input.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "Pair with handoff_start" and by the blocking handoff behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over request_user_input or other wait tools. It lacks exclusions and prerequisites.

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