Retrieves the current Bunpro review queue, showing which items are due for review now.
Get the current review queue
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_queue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the name — 'current' hints at a live snapshot but it doesn't say what the queue contains, how it is ordered, or whether it mutates session state.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 is the only place an agent could learn what a 'queue' returns (item shape, ordering, count). It provides none of that, and given ~21 sibling getters with overlapping vocabulary, the definition is too thin to let the agent call this confidently over alternatives.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to explain, and the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous about invocation.
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?
The description states a verb and resource ('Get the current review queue'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, with siblings like get_due, get_quiz_questions, and get_srs_overview, 'queue' is ambiguous — the description never clarifies whether this is the due-items queue, a study session queue, or something else, so an agent can't reliably distinguish it from get_due.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_due or get_quiz_questions, which appear to overlap in purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-naming are given; the agent must guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.