get_solveRetrieve an hCaptcha solve by ID to check its status or get the token once complete; set wait_seconds to wait for completion.
Get a solve by id: its status, and the token once it is solved. Set wait_seconds to wait for it to finish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The solve id (solve_…). | |
| wait_seconds | No | Hold up to this many seconds (1-50) for the solve to finish. Omit to return at once. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that the token only materializes once the solve is solved and that wait_seconds holds the call open, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about what happens on failure, cancellation, or timeout.
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?
A single tight sentence with the return payload front-loaded and the optional parameter behavior last. No 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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it only sketches it as 'status, and the token'. For a polling retrieval tool, an agent still lacks the field layout and the behavior on failed/expired solves.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented including the 1-50 bound and the 'omit to return at once' default. The description restates the wait semantics and adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 (get a solve by id) and names the payload the caller gets back (status, token). It implicitly differentiates from list_solves by being id-scoped, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 clause 'Set wait_seconds to wait for it to finish' gives usable guidance on the long-poll mode versus the immediate-return default. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives like list_solves or cancel_solve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.