Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

create_worker

Create a queue worker for a Laravel Forge site, configuring connection, queue, timeout, attempts, and processes.

Instructions

Create a queue worker for a site

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "connection": "<connection>"
    },
    "name": "create_worker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`queue`	No	Queue name (default: default)
`sleep`	No	Sleep seconds when no jobs
`tries`	No	Max job attempts
`daemon`	No	Run as daemon
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`timeout`	No	Job timeout in seconds
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server
`processes`	No	Number of worker processes
`connection`	Yes	Queue connection (e.g., redis, database)
`phpVersion`	No	PHP version (e.g., php84)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It fails to mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., server/site must exist), or whether the worker is started immediately. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is overly brief and could benefit from a bit more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given there are 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It should explain what a queue worker is, how creation affects the site, and what the response looks like. Significant gaps remain.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides adequate details for each parameter, making the description's lack of extra context acceptable.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'queue worker for a site', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_worker' or 'list_workers'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 like 'create_daemon' or 'create_scheduled_job'. It lacks any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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