Wait for the first of several pending Agda jobs to finish, returning as soon as one completes. Use it after distributing work across workspaces to avoid waiting on every job.
Wait for the FIRST of several pending jobs to finish; use after fanning work out across workspaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobs | No | Job ids to race; omit to await every tracked job | |
| waitMs | No | Milliseconds to wait for the first completion before returning pending |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose the race semantics (returns on first completion rather than all), which is the key trait. However it says nothing about what is returned — the winning job id, its status, or what happens when the waitMs budget expires — leaving a meaningful gap.
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 semicolon-joined sentence with the semantics front-loaded and the usage hint second. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the caller receives on first completion versus on timeout. It conveys the trigger condition but not the result shape, so it is only partially complete for a tool whose return value matters most.
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%, so both `jobs` (race set, omit to await all tracked) and `waitMs` (timeout before returning pending) are already fully documented. The description adds only the 'FIRST' framing and nothing about ordering or default waitMs behavior, so 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 (wait) and resource (pending jobs) with the distinguishing scope 'FIRST of several', which separates it from a single-job await. It stops short of naming the sibling agda_job_await/agda_job_status, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
'use after fanning work out across workspaces' gives a clear usage context that tells the agent this is a post-fan-out aggregation call. There is no when-not guidance or explicit pointer to agda_job_await for single-job cases, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.