Inspect a single RabbitMQ queue to get message counts, rates, consumers, memory use, and arguments for troubleshooting or capacity checks.
[READ] One queue's full detail: counts, rates, consumers, memory, arguments.
Args: vhost: The queue's vhost (the default vhost is '/'). name: Queue name (from list_queues). target: rabbitmq target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vhost | Yes | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The '[READ]' prefix duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than adding to it. The description does add value by enumerating the returned data categories and noting the default vhost ('/') and that target may be omitted, but it discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or behavior for a non-existent queue.
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?
Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the Args block, and every line contributes. Slightly over-formatted for a three-parameter read tool but nothing is wasteful.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (counts, rates, consumers, memory, arguments), and all params are documented. Adequate for a read-only inspection tool, though it omits error/not-found behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines vhost (default '/'), name (sourced from list_queues), and target (rabbitmq config target, omit for default). All three parameters get useful semantics; only deeper syntax detail is missing.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: 'One queue's full detail', enumerating the categories of data (counts, rates, consumers, memory, arguments). This implicitly separates it from list_queues (plural, list-level) and queue_overview, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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: the name parameter is annotated '(from list_queues)', which hints at a list-then-inspect workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternative siblings such as queue_overview or rabbitmq_queue_backlog_rca.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.