Skip to main content
Glama
cexll
by cexll

timeout-test

Test timeout prevention by running for a specified duration in milliseconds. Use this tool to verify timeout handling mechanisms in code execution workflows.

Instructions

Test timeout prevention by running for a specified duration

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
durationYesDuration in milliseconds (minimum 10ms)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the timeout test by sleeping for the specified duration in steps, reporting progress, and returning a summary of the execution.
    execute: async (args, onProgress) => {
      const duration = args.duration as number;
      const steps = Math.ceil(duration / 5000); // Progress every 5 seconds
      const stepDuration = duration / steps;
      const startTime = Date.now();
    
      const results: string[] = [];
      results.push(`Starting timeout test for ${duration}ms (${duration / 1000}s)`);
    
      for (let i = 1; i <= steps; i++) {
        await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, stepDuration));
        const elapsed = Date.now() - startTime;
        results.push(`Step ${i}/${steps} completed - Elapsed: ${Math.round(elapsed / 1000)}s`);
      }
    
      const totalElapsed = Date.now() - startTime;
      results.push(`\nTimeout test completed successfully!`);
      results.push(`Target duration: ${duration}ms`);
      results.push(`Actual duration: ${totalElapsed}ms`);
    
      return results.join('\n');
    },
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter 'duration' as a number with minimum 10ms.
    const timeoutTestArgsSchema = z.object({
      duration: z.number().min(10).describe('Duration in milliseconds (minimum 10ms)'),
    });
  • Registration of the timeoutTestTool into the central toolRegistry along with other tools.
    toolRegistry.push(
      askCodexTool,
      batchCodexTool,
      // reviewCodexTool,
      pingTool,
      helpTool,
      versionTool,
      brainstormTool,
      fetchChunkTool,
      timeoutTestTool
    );

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs for a specified duration but lacks details on side effects, return values, or whether it is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves waiting or blocking.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core message.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential idea. However, it lacks context on what 'timeout prevention' means, typical use cases, and expected behavior after the duration elapses.

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 100% (duration parameter already described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'running for a specified duration', which is already implied by the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test timeout prevention by running for a specified duration'. It uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('timeout prevention'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ping' or 'health'.

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?

The description implies usage for testing timeout prevention but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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