rq-mcp

get_worker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Redis Queue worker's full details by name, including state, hostname, PID, queues, heartbeat, and job stats. Returns null if the worker is not registered.

Instructions

Return full details for a single worker by name, or null if not currently registered.

Includes state, hostname, IP address, PID, queue names, current job ID (if any), birth/last-heartbeat timestamps (plus heartbeat age in seconds), job counters, and total working time in seconds.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_worker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the description adds the null behavior and enumerates the fields returned, giving concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear enumeration of returned fields. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple single-parameter input and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lists the return fields, so an agent knows what to expect. The null case is covered, and no gaps are apparent.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'name' parameter, but the tool description clarifies it refers to a worker's name. No additional detail on format or constraints is given, but for a simple string this is adequate.

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?

The description clearly states it returns full details for a single worker by name, with a specific null return for unregistered workers. It distinguishes from siblings like list_workers (which lists all) by focusing on a single-worker lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context that it retrieves a single worker by name, implying use when a specific worker name is known. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is unambiguous and self-evident.

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

Deploy Server