Waits for a Running operation by number and returns its final reply; completed operations return the same reply again.
Wait for an operation that replied Running, and return its final reply. Finished operations return the same reply again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wait_s | No | How long to wait, up to 30 seconds. | |
| operation | Yes | Operation number from the reply header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing idempotency ('finished operations return the same reply again'), which annotations cannot express. It omits what happens when wait_s expires without completion (does it return 'Running' again, error, or partial?) and whether the call blocks the whole time.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior stated first and the idempotency caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and 'return its final reply' is vague about the shape of that reply and how it relates to the original tool's output. Timeout behavior, the most likely failure mode for a polling tool with a 30-second cap, is also undocumented.
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%, with both parameters documented in the schema including the 0-30 second range for wait_s. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter — notably it does not say whether omitting wait_s means a non-blocking poll or the default 30-second block. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.
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 action on a specific resource: wait on an operation that returned 'Running' and return its final reply. The idempotent re-read behavior ('Finished operations return the same reply again') further pins down what the call does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling operation_cancel, which is the only closely related tool.
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?
Usage is implied by the condition 'an operation that replied Running', so an agent can infer this is the follow-up to a long-running call. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, no mention of operation_cancel as the alternative when the agent wants to abandon the operation rather than wait, and no advice on choosing a wait_s value.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.