mcp-coreclaw

queue_worker_run

Submit a CoreClaw worker run to the Run Queue instead of executing immediately.

WHEN TO USE: Use when the user wants to queue a run for later activation rather than start it right away. Returns a queue_ref to track, activate, or release the queued item. 中文触发: 当用户要在 CoreClaw 中查询、运行、重跑、停止、导出或查看对应 worker/run/task 数据时使用。

WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use public web search or code search for private CoreClaw platform data. Do not call excluded internal worker-version or internal-detail APIs.

RETURNS: JSON with queued, queue_ref, and queue_status fields.

WORKFLOW: Follow with list_run_queue_items to inspect, activate_run_queue_items to start, or release_run_queue_items to cancel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Result limit. Example: 20. Must be 1-100. (default: 20)
`offset`	No	Page number, 1-based. offset=1 is page 1; offset=0 is accepted as page 1. (default: 1)
`version`	No	Worker script version. Example: "latest" or "1.0.1". Obtain from get_worker; default is backend latest. (optional)
`is_async`	No	Whether CoreClaw should run asynchronously. Example: true. Use false only for small synchronous runs. (default: true)
`worker_id`	Yes	Worker slug or owner path. Example: "demo-worker" or "owner~demo-worker". Obtain from list_store_workers or list_workers.
`input_json`	No	Worker business input payload as a JSON object string. Example: {"keyword":"coffee","limit":10}. The MCP server sends it as input.parameters.custom. Schema comes from get_worker_input_schema. (optional)
`callback_url`	No	Callback URL for asynchronous status updates. Example: "https://client.example.com/openapi/callback". (optional)
`raw_input_json`	No	Advanced escape hatch: full CoreClaw input object to send as input without wrapping. Do not combine with input_json. (optional)

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints. The description adds the key behavior: the run is queued, not executed immediately, and returns queued/queue_ref/queue_status. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or what happens queue-side, but these are not required given the annotation baseline.

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 structured with clear sections but is somewhat verbose. The Chinese trigger sentence is redundant and confusing, and the WHEN NOT TO USE section is generic filler. The key purpose is front-loaded, but the extra content could be trimmed.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the core queueing concept, return fields, and a workflow for subsequent actions. However, it doesn't explain why limit/offset parameters apply to a submission tool, and lacks error/edge-case information. Given no output schema, it does provide minimal return info.

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% with detailed parameter explanations (defaults, examples, constraints). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, so the baseline of 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 states 'Submit a CoreClaw worker run to the Run Queue instead of executing immediately' – a specific verb, resource, and destination that clearly distinguishes it from immediate execution tools like run_worker. It also mentions returning a queue_ref for tracking.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

WHEN TO USE provides explicit context ('when the user wants to queue a run for later activation'), and WORKFLOW outlines follow-up tool usage. However, WHEN NOT TO USE is generic (public web/code search) and does not explicitly name run_worker as the alternative for immediate execution; the Chinese trigger line is overly broad and includes many unrelated operations.

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

All mcp-coreclaw tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools follow a systematic scope pattern (user's last run, worker's last run, specific run), so intent is discernible, but the reversed word order (e.g., get_last_worker_run vs get_worker_last_run) makes many tools easy to conflate. Descriptions are thorough, yet the sheer number of near-identical names creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Verbs and nouns are consistently snake_case, but the modifier order alternates unpredictably—some tools say last_worker_run, others worker_last_run—across abort/export/get/list/rerun groups. This inconsistency makes the set feel less coherent than a strict verb_noun pattern would.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the surface is heavily inflated by triplicating every run-related action across user-last, worker-last, and specific-run scopes. Many of these could be consolidated into a single tool with optional worker_id/run_id parameters, making the count feel excessive for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle of workers, runs, tasks, queue, and account, including poll/verify/batch operations that go beyond basic CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit run-input retrieval, no worker editing), but agents can achieve all common workflows without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?