trigger-long-running-operationSimulate a multi-step long-running task with progress updates to validate MCP client handling of asynchronous operations and progress notifications.
Demonstrates a long running operation with progress updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Number of steps in the operation | |
| duration | No | Duration of the operation in seconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait of progress updates, which is beyond the annotations, but does not explain how progress is reported, whether the operation blocks, or what the response contains.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence of 8 words that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition.
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?
While the schema and annotations provide good coverage for a simple demo tool, the absence of an output schema and the minimal description leave uncertainty about the actual operation's behavior and progress mechanism. The description is adequate but not rich enough to be fully complete.
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 'steps' and 'duration' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as demonstrating a long-running operation with progress updates, which is more specific than simply restating the name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting progress updates, though the verb 'demonstrates' is slightly less direct than 'triggers' or 'runs'.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or compare with any sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.