mcp-blanko

long_running_task

Execute a simulated long-running task for data processing or report generation. Specify a task name and optional duration to test async workflows.

Instructions

Demonstrates an async tool that simulates a long-running operation (e.g., data processing, report generation).

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": {
      "taskName": "<taskName>"
    },
    "name": "long_running_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskName`	Yes	Name of the task to run
`durationMs`	No	Simulated duration in milliseconds (100-5000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description only says 'async' and 'simulates', but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as return value, status checking, or cancellation behavior.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it could be longer to include more context without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format or how the async result is delivered, leaving the agent guessing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the already descriptive parameter names and schema comments.

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?

The description states the tool simulates an async long-running operation with examples like data processing and report generation. It distinguishes from siblings as none of them mention async or simulation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_data or process_order, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server