PokerData

Record a solve request

enqueue_solve

Record a heads-up postflop solve request. Required: title, board, pot (bb), effective_stack (bb). The job stays pending: solver dispatch and billing are not configured, so this does not start a solve.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pot`	Yes	Starting pot in big blinds.
`tags`	No	Free-form tags stored with the job.
`board`	Yes	Board to solve, e.g. "3h 3d 2s".
`title`	Yes	Label for the job, 1 to 120 characters.
`ip_range`	No	In-position range in the same weights format.
`add_allin`	No	Add an all-in branch alongside the bet sizes.
`bet_sizes`	No	Bet sizes as fractions of the pot, e.g. [0.33, 0.75].
`oop_range`	No	Out-of-position range as hand-class weights, e.g. "AA:1,AKs:0.42". Defaults are left to the solver config.
`iterations`	No	Requested solver iterations, 50 to 5000.
`effective_stack`	Yes	Effective stack behind, in big blinds.
`max_aggressions`	No	Raises allowed per street, 1 to 4.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pot`	No	Pot in big blinds.
`board`	No	Board for the requested solve.
`title`	No	Title given when the job was recorded.
`reason`	No	Why the job does not start a solve.
`status`	No	"pending", "running", "done", or "failed".
`dispatch`	No	Always "not_configured".
`queue_id`	No	Id for get_queued_solve.
`createdAt`	No	ISO timestamp the job was recorded.
`solution_id`	No	Always null while dispatch is disabled.
`effective_stack`	No	Effective stack in big blinds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / add_allin / description

Added value: +"Add an all-in branch alongside the bet sizes."

addedInput schema / properties / bet_sizes / description

Added value: +"Bet sizes as fractions of the pot, e.g. [0.33, 0.75]."

addedInput schema / properties / board / description

Added value: +"Board to solve, e.g. \"3h 3d 2s\"."

addedInput schema / properties / effective_stack / description
```
Added value: +"Effective stack behind, in big blinds."
```

addedInput schema / properties / ip_range / description

Added value: +"In-position range in the same weights format."

addedInput schema / properties / iterations / description

Added value: +"Requested solver iterations, 50 to 5000."

addedInput schema / properties / max_aggressions / description
```
Added value: +"Raises allowed per street, 1 to 4."
```

addedInput schema / properties / oop_range / description

Added value: +"Out-of-position range as hand-class weights, e.g. \"AA:1,AKs:0.42\". Defaults are left to the solver config."

addedInput schema / properties / pot / description
```
Added value: +"Starting pot in big blinds."
```

addedInput schema / properties / tags / description

Added value: +"Free-form tags stored with the job."

addedInput schema / properties / title / description

Added value: +"Label for the job, 1 to 120 characters."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "One recorded solve request. Dispatch is not configured, so a job stays pending and never gets a solution id.",
+  "properties": {
+    "board": {
+      "description": "Board for the requested solve.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "createdAt": {
+      "description": "ISO timestamp the job was recorded.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "dispatch": {
+      "description": "Always \"not_configured\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "effective_stack": {
+      "description": "Effective stack in big blinds.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "pot": {
+      "description": "Pot in big blinds.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "queue_id": {
+      "description": "Id for get_queued_solve.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "description": "Why the job does not start a solve.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "solution_id": {
+      "description": "Always null while dispatch is disabled.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "\"pending\", \"running\", \"done\", or \"failed\".",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Title given when the job was recorded.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations state the write/side-effect profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the recorded job stays pending and no solver dispatch or billing occurs. This is exactly the kind of operational caveat annotations cannot express; it stops short of describing retry/idempotency implications.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then required inputs, then the key 'does not start a solve' caveat. Efficient, though the 'Required: ...' list marginally duplicates the schema's required array.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain returns. It covers purpose, required inputs, and the critical pending/no-dispatch behavior, so an agent has what it needs; only the interaction with retries/idempotency is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% with units ('in big blinds') and constraints already documented per-property, so the schema carries the burden. The description's enumeration of the four required fields and '(bb)' units largely repeats what the schema provides, adding little beyond confirming the required set.

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 (Record) and resource (heads-up postflop solve request/enqueue solve), and the scope qualifier 'heads-up postflop' distinguishes it from the many read-side siblings like get_queued_solve, list_queued_solves, get_postflop_node.

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?

It explains what happens after the call (job stays pending, no solve started), which informs usage, but it never names an alternative or states when to record a request versus inspecting existing ones. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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

All PokerData 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?