Quantum Expectations

Example Quantum Algorithms

list_example_algorithms

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the curated list of example quantum algorithms with published resource estimates (qubit count, depth/gate count, source paper URL). Useful for comparing what algorithms need vs. what hardware can deliver. Each entry carries a provenance field: 'published-circuit' means the figure is reproducible from the source, 'attested-estimate' means the source withholds the circuit and the figure rests on the authors' attestation, with a provenanceNote giving the specifics. Carry that caveat whenever you quote an attested figure; do not present it as equivalently sourced.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Curated algorithms with published resource estimates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "items": {
+      "description": "Curated algorithms with published resource estimates.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "compDepth": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "compDepthDisplay": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "numQubits": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "provenance": {
+            "enum": [
+              "published-circuit",
+              "attested-estimate"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "provenanceNote": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "source": {
+            "format": "uri",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "numQubits",
+          "compDepth",
+          "compDepthDisplay",
+          "source",
+          "provenance",
+          "provenanceNote"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedJul 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds important provenance semantics: 'published-circuit' vs 'attested-estimate', plus a caveat that attested figures should not be presented as equivalently sourced. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then gives a usage scenario, then explains the provenance caveat. Every sentence adds relevant information, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and rich annotations. The description covers returned content, usage context, and provenance caveats without omitting anything an agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter usage, and the schema is empty.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the curated list of example quantum algorithms with published resource estimates.' It also names the returned fields (qubit count, depth/gate count, source paper URL), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling compute/list tools.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Useful for comparing what algorithms need vs. what hardware can deliver.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear.

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

All Quantum Expectations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?