Blocks until a download job completes, fails, or is canceled, or a timeout elapses, then returns the job status and details.
Wait until a job is done, failed or canceled (or the timeout passes) and return it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially discharges it: it discloses the terminal states and that a timeout can end the wait, but not whether a timeout raises an error or returns the job in its current state, whether the call blocks the session, or the 600-second default that lives only in 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and outcome set, with the timeout caveat parenthesized rather than padding the sentence. Nothing is wasted.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the outcome space but leaves the most consequential question unanswered: what the caller gets back when the timeout fires. Return values needn't be described in general, but this tool's defining behavior is the timeout branch.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It alludes to a timeout but never explains its unit, default, or upper bound, and never clarifies that job_id is the identifier of an already-submitted job (cf. submit_video).
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 ('job') and enumerates the terminal conditions (done, failed, canceled) plus the timeout escape. This implicitly distinguishes it from the immediate sibling get_job, 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?
No guidance about when to prefer this blocking call over get_job (poll once) or list_jobs, and no mention of preconditions such as the job existing or being pending. The only usage cue is the word 'Wait', which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.