login_qr_pollPolls QR code login status at intervals until the user scans or timeout expires, returning success with a JWT-authenticated user object once authenticated.
等待/轮询扫码登录结果（免鉴权）。timeout 秒内每 3 秒查询一次，用户扫码后返回 status=success 与用户对象（JWT 已自动保存）；timeout=0 只查一次。默认 120 秒。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | 等待秒数，0=只查一次；默认 120 | |
| session_id | Yes | login_qr_start 返回的 session_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the polling cadence, timeout semantics, success response shape, and the side effect that JWT is saved automatically. It does not describe failure/timeout return behavior, which is a minor but notable 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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and auth requirement. It packs the essential behavioral details into two short sentences without redundancy or 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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: poll interval, timeout behavior, success response, and JWT side effect. It is missing explicit handling for timeout expiry or error statuses, but the provided information is sufficient for most agent usage.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the polling interval, the meaning of timeout=0, and that a successful scan returns a user object with the JWT auto-saved. This extra context helps the agent reason about parameter behavior.
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 action ('等待/轮询扫码登录结果') and the target resource (QR login result), and clarifies authentication is not required. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like login_qr_start and login_qr_recognize by focusing on polling the login result.
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 description gives clear usage context: it polls every 3 seconds within a timeout, and timeout=0 means a single check. It implicitly tells the agent when to use it via the session_id parameter referencing login_qr_start, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.