Skip to main content
Glama
varadfromeast

codex-agy-bridge

by varadfromeast
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agy_run_wait

Wait for one or more agent runs to reach a chosen condition—attention, terminal, completion, or any event—using event-driven monitoring instead of polling. Specify run IDs and an optional timeout.

Instructions

Wait for sparse Run events instead of repeatedly polling status.

run_ids is always a list, even for one Run. Supported condition values: any_attention, any_terminal, all_terminal, any_event, plus aliases attention, terminal, finished, finish, complete, completed, result, all_finished, all_complete, and all_completed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNo
run_idsYes
conditionNoany_attention
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / after / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / condition / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "any_event",
+  "any_attention",
+  "any_terminal",
+  "all_terminal",
+  "event",
+  "attention",
+  "terminal",
+  "finished",
+  "finish",
+  "complete",
+  "completed",
+  "result",
+  "all_finished",
+  "all_complete",
+  "all_completed"
+]
  3. Addedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains condition values and aliases)Skip and positions the operation as a wait, but it does not explicitly disclose blocking semantics, behavior on timeout, or the meaning of 'after'. This leaves important behavioral details implicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence gives the purpose, and the remaining text packs parameter and condition semantics with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is strong on purpose and condition values, but the 'after' parameter is completely unexplained and the blocking/timeout behavior is only implied. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need description, but the gaps around 'after' and timeout reduce completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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. It usefully explains that run_ids is always a list and expands condition aliases, but it says nothing about 'after' or 'timeout_seconds', leaving two parameters underspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Wait'), a resource ('sparse Run events'), and contrasts with the common polling pattern. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like agy_run_observe or agy_run_result.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this instead of repeatedly polling status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the core usage pattern is communicated effectively.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools