Waits for the next Bluetooth Low Energy notification on a subscription and returns its value, or null if none arrives within the timeout.
Wait up to timeout_s for the next notification and return it, or null if nothing arrives within the window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_s | No | ||
| connection_id | Yes | ||
| subscription_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: it blocks up to timeout_s and returns null on timeout. However, it omits that a subscription must first exist, and does not clarify whether concurrent calls, reuse across calls, or buffered notifications are handled.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the blocking wait, the timeout parameter, and the null-on-timeout outcome. No wasted words.
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?
An output schema exists so return format needn't be explained, and the description still usefully states the null-on-timeout case. But with no annotations and two undocumented required identifiers, the definition is only minimally complete for a blocking-wait tool.
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 three parameters (connection_id, subscription_id, timeout_s) are undocumented in the schema. The description covers timeout_s ('up to timeout_s') and hints at the return or null, but adds no meaning for connection_id or subscription_id. Partial compensation for a 0%-coverage schema.
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 (notification) and its blocking semantics with a timeout and return shape. It is distinguishable from lw_ble_poll_notifications, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'wait' vs 'poll'.
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 description explains the wait behavior but gives no guidance on when to choose this over lw_ble_poll_notifications, which is the obvious competing tool in the sibling list. No prerequisites (a prior subscribe) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.