fivem-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Pause

wait

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pause FiveM automation for a given number of milliseconds so loading screens, walk cycles, and held-key sequences complete before the next action.

Instructions

Sleep between actions — loading screens, walk cycles, held-key sequences.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ms": "<ms>"
    },
    "name": "wait"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ms`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, which already communicate safety. The description adds that this is meant to 'sleep between actions' with specific scenarios, providing useful context about when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't describe maximum duration, blocking behavior, or whether it returns anything.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Sleep between actions') followed by illustrative examples. No wasted words, though the em-dash style is compact.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but doesn't mention the maximum wait time or that it blocks execution. An agent might need to know these details to avoid unexpected delays. However, for a basic wait tool, the essentials are covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema only shows that 'ms' is a required integer between 0 and 120000. The description says 'Sleep' but doesn't clarify that 'ms' is milliseconds or the max limit. However, the parameter name 'ms' is self-explanatory and the schema provides bounds; the description adds minimal value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Titled 'Pause' and described as 'Sleep between actions', the tool clearly performs a delay. The examples ('loading screens, walk cycles, held-key sequences') clarify its use over generic sleep, and it is distinguishable from siblings like wait_for_console, but the description doesn't explicitly name them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the examples ('between actions – loading screens...'), which suggest when to insert a pause. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs. wait_for_console or other alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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