Skip to main content
Glama
Jij-Inc

Jij MCP Server

Official
by Jij-Inc

qiskit_v2_api_reference_toc

Fetch the Qiskit v2 API reference table of contents in Markdown format to navigate documentation for quantum computing development.

Instructions

Fetch the Qiskit v2 (latest) API reference table of contents (https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit).
Returns:
    str: The table of contents in Markdown format.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'qiskit_v2_api_reference_toc' tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and fetches the Qiskit v2 API reference TOC from the specified URL using the fetch_as_markdown helper, returning it as a string or an error message.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def qiskit_v2_api_reference_toc() -> str:
        """
        Fetch the Qiskit v2 (latest) API reference table of contents (https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit).
        Returns:
            str: The table of contents in Markdown format.
        """
        url = "https://docs.quantum.ibm.com/api/qiskit"
        response: FetchResponse = await fetch_as_markdown(url)
        if response.isError:
            return response.errorMessage if response.errorMessage else "Error fetching the content"
        return url + "\n" + response.content[0]["text"]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches and returns the table of contents in Markdown format, which covers the basic operation and output. However, it lacks details on potential behavioral traits such as network dependencies, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly state the action and the return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste. The structure is clear and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple fetch operation with 0 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, which is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like errors or dependencies, and with no output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure. For a tool with no structured data, this is a bare-minimum description.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there are no parameters for the description to compensate for. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately does not include any, which is efficient and correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches the Qiskit v2 API reference table of contents from a specific URL, which is a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('table of contents'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'qiskit_v1_api_reference_toc' by specifying 'v2 (latest)', but does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'fetch_as_markdown' or 'qiskit_tutorial' in terms of when to use each. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use it over 'qiskit_v1_api_reference_toc' for older versions, or over 'fetch_as_markdown' for other markdown fetching tasks. There is no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Jij-Inc/Jij-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server