list_queued_solvesList this account's solver-queue jobs, newest first. Jobs are not dispatched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | Jobs to return, 1 to 50. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solves | No | Queued jobs. None are dispatched. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Jobs to return, 1 to 50."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "This account's solver-queue jobs, newest first.",
+ "properties": {
+ "solves": {
+ "description": "Queued jobs. None are dispatched.",
+ "items": {
+ "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"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: result ordering (newest first) and that queued jobs are not dispatched, which tells the agent this is passive inspection rather than a trigger.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no waste. The resource and scope lead, and the non-dispatch caveat follows immediately where it is most useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies scope and ordering; the only minor gap is no mention of how the queue relates to enqueue_solve or of pagination beyond the limit parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-50, default 20). The description adds no syntax or default information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource ('List this account's solver-queue jobs') plus ordering ('newest first'). It does not name the adjacent siblings get_queued_solve (singular fetch) or enqueue_solve, so an agent must infer the boundary itself, but the scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the verb and the scoping phrase 'this account's'; there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no pointer to get_queued_solve for single-job retrieval or enqueue_solve for adding jobs. The closest thing to guidance is the behavioral note that jobs are not dispatched.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.