Poll a Hyper-V VM until it reaches a requested state, returning a timeout result without changing its power state.
Poll until a VM reaches one of the requested states. Returns matched=false on timeout and never changes power state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| states | Yes | ||
| vm_name | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| poll_interval_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context on top: timeout behavior returns matched=false rather than raising, and the tool is guaranteed not to mutate power state. It does not say whether it blocks for the full timeout or what happens on an invalid VM name, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the timeout and no-mutation guarantees.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The real gap is the complete absence of parameter guidance at 0% schema coverage, which for a polling tool with interval and timeout knobs leaves the agent guessing about cost and behavior.
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 carry parameter meaning, and it mostly does not. 'states' is only indirectly explained as target states, while 'timeout_seconds' and 'poll_interval_ms' (including their defaults of 60 and 500) are never discussed in terms of tradeoffs or units.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: poll a named VM until it reaches one of the requested states. The closing clause 'never changes power state' distinguishes it from vm_power, and 'reaches one of the requested states' distinguishes it from a one-shot vm_get, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.
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 waiting semantics are clear, but the description never names an alternative or states when not to use it. The 'never changes power state' clause implicitly points at vm_power for state changes, but this is inference rather than explicit guidance about when to wait versus poll manually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.