cloud_domain_waitPolls a domain order until it becomes active or failed after purchase, waiting for MONA Host to finish processing within a timeout.
Long-poll cho đến khi tên miền chuyển sang active/failed (mặc định timeout=60s). Dùng sau cloud_domain_buy để chờ MONA Host xử lý.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID cần chờ. | |
| timeout | No | Timeout giây. Mặc định 60. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety traits like readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior by stating it is a long-poll that waits for active/failed states, though it omits what happens on timeout or any auth/rate-limit context.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.
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?
For a wait tool with rich schema annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, terminal states, and sequencing after purchase. The only notable gap is not clarifying what the call returns or does if the timeout elapses.
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 both parameters (id and timeout) are fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats the default timeout=60s, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 specific verb ('Long-poll'), resource ('tên miền'), and terminal conditions ('active/failed'). It also ties the tool to its predecessor sibling ('Dùng sau cloud_domain_buy'), making its role clear.
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 explicitly says to use this tool after cloud_domain_buy to wait for MONA Host processing. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative polling/status tools such as cloud_domain_verify_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.