Poll a Cursor relay run for up to 30 seconds and signal whether to call again or stop and diagnose instead of treating unknown execution states as failure or completion.
最多等待 30 秒。mustCallAgain=true 时继续轮询；needsAttention=true 时停止无条件轮询并诊断，不能把未知执行状态当作失败或完成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| waitMs | No | ||
| relayRunId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 30-second wait bound, polling decision semantics for `mustCallAgain`/`needsAttention`, and a diagnostic warning about unknown states — useful context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Two dense sentences with no filler. The 30-second cap and polling conditions are front-loaded, making the key constraints immediately visible.
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 tool with no output schema, the description should orient the agent to the return values; it names `mustCallAgain` and `needsAttention` but never defines their semantics or origin. Combined with no `relayRunId` explanation, this leaves gaps, though annotations cover the safety profile.
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 explain both parameters. It effectively restates the waitMs upper bound as '30 seconds' but says nothing about `relayRunId`, the required run identifier, nor any meaning for `waitMs` beyond the schema maximum.
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 the core action — wait up to 30 seconds and continue polling under specific conditions — which clearly identifies a bounded polling tool. However, it never names the run/resource being waited on and does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_run or view_run, so differentiation relies on the tool name alone.
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?
It gives explicit conditional instructions for acting on `mustCallAgain` and `needsAttention`, and warns against treating unknown states as failure or completion. It does not say when to choose this tool over `get_run`, `read_run_progress`, or other siblings, so initial-call guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.