PokerData

Get a queued solve

get_queued_solve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up one queued solve for this account. status is pending, running, done, or failed. solution_id is null until a worker exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`queue_id`	Yes	Queue id returned by enqueue_solve.

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / queue_id / description
```
Added value: +"Queue id returned by enqueue_solve."
```

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the valid status values and the fact that solution_id stays null until a worker exists. It does not state whether polling is expected or at what cadence.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the state/model semantics. Every sentence carries new information with no filler.

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, the return shape needn't be re-explained, and annotations cover safety. The only gap is routing guidance relative to list_queued_solves, which the description leaves to inference.

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%, so queue_id is fully documented in the schema as 'Queue id returned by enqueue_solve'. The description's added detail (status, solution_id) concerns returned fields, not the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up one queued solve') and the 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_queued_solves sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so an agent still has to infer the single-vs-list split.

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?

Scoping is implied by 'for this account' and 'one queued solve', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. list_queued_solves) to route the agent. Usage must be inferred from the singular framing.

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?