queue-inspector-mcp

Retry job

retry_job

Idempotent

Move a failed or dead job back to the pending queue to retry execution. Replicates backend retry mechanisms for Asynq and BullMQ.

Instructions

Move a failed or dead job back to the pending/wait queue so it runs again. Faithfully replicates the backend's own retry (asynq Inspector.RunTask, bullmq Job.retry).

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": {
      "queue": "<queue>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "retry_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Job or task id.
`queue`	Yes	Queue name, as reported by list_queues.
`backend`	No	Which backend owns the queue. Optional when the queue name is unique across backends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining the effect (moving to pending queue) and faithfulness to backend retry. It does not contradict annotations. Would benefit from stating constraints like job must be in a retryable state.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose clearly, second reinforces behavioral accuracy with backend reference. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has no output schema but annotations cover safety. The description explains the outcome (job moved to pending queue). For a simple mutation, this is mostly complete, though returning a success indicator would be helpful.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (id, queue, backend). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action ('Move a failed or dead job back to the pending/wait queue') and target resource ('failed or dead job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_job (removal) and get_job (reading) by focusing on retrying a job.

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 description implies usage for retrying failed/dead jobs and references backend retry functions, providing context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool (e.g., if the job is already pending) or direct comparison with alternatives.

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

Deploy Server