wait_taskBlocks until a delegated coding task completes or the timeout expires, then returns its result. Use the task_id from start_task to retrieve output.
Wait until a task finishes (or timeout_seconds passes) and return its result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | task_id from start_task | |
| timeout_seconds | No | Default 60. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already covering safety, the description adds genuine context annotations cannot: that the call blocks until completion or a timeout, and that it returns the result rather than just a status. It omits what actually happens when timeout_seconds expires (error, partial result, or status payload), and does not explain the non-idempotentHint=true flag.
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 sentence that front-loads the blocking behavior and the timeout condition, followed by the return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 two-parameter blocking tool with no output schema, the entry point (task_id from start_task) and the timeout bound are covered, but the two things an agent most needs for a wait primitive are missing: the outcome when the timeout expires and any hint of the result shape.
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%: task_id is documented as coming from start_task and timeout_seconds as having a default of 60 with a 1-600 range. The description only restates that timeout_seconds can elapse, adding no format or usage detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
Specific verb+resource ('wait' + 'task') with the terminating conditions stated inline: task finish or timeout_seconds elapsing, plus it returns the result. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious alternative get_task (polling), so an agent must infer the distinction from the sibling list.
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 blocking semantics imply 'use this instead of repeatedly polling get_task', but that is left to inference. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.