preview_queueCheck upcoming queue slots and their scheduled content. Optionally retrieve the next available slot timestamp.
Preview the upcoming queue slots and what would land in them. Optionally nextSlot=true returns just the next available slot timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nextSlot | No | ||
| profile_username | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reinforces the read-only, non-destructive nature implied by annotations by framing the result as a preview of 'what would land'. It also discloses the optional nextSlot output mode, adding useful behavior beyond the annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional nextSlot behavior is stated succinctly in the second sentence.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the core preview behavior is stated. However, the unexplained profile_username parameter and lack of routing guidance against sibling read tools leave meaningful gaps, making this only minimally complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains nextSlot=true precisely but says nothing about profile_username, leaving a likely filter parameter completely unexplained and forcing the agent to guess its semantics.
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?
States a specific action, 'Preview', against a clear resource, 'upcoming queue slots', and explains what it shows: 'what would land in them'. This is distinct from sibling read tools like list_scheduled or get_status without requiring schema inspection.
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?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you want to see upcoming queue slots and their hypothetical contents, optionally narrowed via nextSlot=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is specific enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.