rq-mcp

health_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run read-only diagnostics across Redis Queue workers, queues, and Redis to detect issues like stale heartbeats, orphaned jobs, or eviction risk, returning structured findings.

Instructions

Run read-only diagnostics across queues, workers, and Redis itself.

Returns {"ok": bool, "findings": [...]}; findings is empty and ok is true when nothing is wrong. Each finding has a severity, a stable code (QUEUE_NO_WORKERS, WORKER_STALE_HEARTBEAT, ORPHANED_STARTED_JOB, OLDEST_JOB_TOO_OLD, REDIS_EVICTION_RISK, HIGH_FAILURE_COUNT), a human-readable message, and structured details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns perfectly by stating 'read-only diagnostics.' The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is an `ok` boolean plus a list of structured findings with stable error codes, which helps an agent interpret the outcome of the call.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the action, and the rest specifies the return contract with useful constants. The list of stable codes is dense but relevant, and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with no parameters and a fully described return shape, the description covers what an agent needs. The mention of specific finding codes and their semantic fields makes the tool's behavior predictable even without probing the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-param tools, the description is not required to add parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run read-only diagnostics across queues, workers, and Redis itself.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that target single components, and the preview of the output shape removes ambiguity.

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?

The scope statement implies this is the aggregate health check while siblings like get_rq_info, redis_info, and list_queues drill into specific components. However, it never explicitly states 'use this when you need an overall status' or names alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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

Deploy Server