MCP Action Firewall

Trigger Long Running Operation Tool

trigger-long-running-operation

Initiate a simulated long-running operation that provides periodic progress updates. Useful for testing how AI agents handle asynchronous tasks and progress tracking within the MCP Action Firewall's approval framework.

Instructions

Demonstrates a long running operation with progress updates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "trigger-long-running-operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`duration`	No	Duration of the operation in seconds
`steps`	No	Number of steps in the operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Mar 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'progress updates' but omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, how to cancel it, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It is front-loaded with the weak verb 'Demonstrates', reducing effectiveness. While not verbose, it lacks structure and important details.

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 the tool's complexity (two simple numeric parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description should provide sufficient behavioral context. It fails to do so, omitting safety, cancellation, and result details. The mention of progress updates is the only meaningful addition.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('duration' and 'steps'), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond noting progress updates, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says 'Demonstrates a long running operation', which essentially restates the tool's name without specifying a concrete action. 'Demonstrates' is vague and does not clearly indicate that the tool triggers an operation, making it a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when or why to use this tool. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives among sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server