Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
o3de-mcp

o3de-mcp

by nickschuetz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wait_for_assets

Waits for the O3DE Asset Processor process to exit or timeout, confirming a one-off AssetProcessorBatch run has finished. Returns completed status and elapsed seconds.

Instructions

Wait for the Asset Processor process to exit (or until timeout).

This watches for the process to stop, not for it to go idle, so it suits a one-off AssetProcessorBatch run. A GUI Asset Processor running beside the editor stays up while idle, so with one running this waits out the timeout and reports completed: false.

Returns a progress result {"completed": bool, "elapsed": seconds}. completed is True when no Asset Processor process is running, or False when one was still running when timeout elapsed, with a message noting the timeout. A not-yet-finished wait is a result, not a failure, so this tool does not return the error envelope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wait_for_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact watched condition (process stop, not idle), the GUI-process failure mode, the meaning of completed=true/false, and critically that a not-yet-finished wait is a result rather than an error envelope. This is behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the idle-vs-stop caveat earns its place. The return-value paragraph partially restates what the output schema already declares, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

For a low-complexity one-parameter waiting tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, failure semantics, and timeout behavior adequately. The main gap is the absence of any routing against the similarly named 'wait_for_asset' sibling.

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?

The single 'timeout' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it references timeout only contextually ('when timeout elapsed') and never states its unit or default (300). It adds some meaning but leaves the parameter under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Wait for the Asset Processor process to exit') plus a precise scope ('or until timeout'), and it sharpens the concept by distinguishing process-stop from idle. It never differentiates from the close sibling 'wait_for_asset' (singular) or 'get_asset_processor_status', so an agent cannot tell them apart from text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a clear when-to-use condition ('suits a one-off AssetProcessorBatch run') and an implied when-not ('A GUI Asset Processor running beside the editor stays up while idle, so with one running this waits out the timeout'). However, it never names the alternative tools an agent might pick instead, so routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools