Block until a video job finishes or the timeout expires, letting agents await results directly without polling.
Bloquea hasta que el job termine (o se agote el timeout). Útil para agentes sin polling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_ms | No | Máxima espera en ms (def 600000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only states the blocking behavior and timeout. It does not explain what happens on timeout (error vs. return), whether the call is synchronous, side effects, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a practical usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundant content.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover timeout behavior details, return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., job must exist). An agent would need additional context to use it safely and correctly.
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 only 50% (timeout_ms has a description, job_id does not). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, and job_id remains undocumented in both places. The description does not compensate for the missing schema coverage.
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 clear action ('blocks') and resource ('job'), and adds a usage hint about being for agents without polling, which hints at differentiation from sibling polling tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It provides clear context ('useful for agents without polling'), which implies when to use it instead of polling-based tools like get_job or list_jobs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.