Skip to main content
Glama

get_work_queue_by_name

Retrieve work queue details from Prefect's workflow automation platform by specifying the queue name to monitor or manage workflow execution resources.

Instructions

Get a work queue by name.

Args: name: The work queue name

Returns: Work queue details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler implementation for the get_work_queue_by_name tool. It fetches the work queue details from Prefect using the provided name and optional work pool name, returning the data as MCP TextContent. The @mcp.tool decorator handles schema inference and registration.
    @mcp.tool
    async def get_work_queue_by_name(
        name: str,
        work_pool_name: Optional[str] = None,
    ) -> List[Union[types.TextContent, types.ImageContent, types.EmbeddedResource]]:
        """
        Get a work queue by name.
        
        Args:
            name: The work queue name
            work_pool_name: Optional work pool name to scope the search
            
        Returns:
            Work queue details
        """
        async with get_client() as client:
            work_queue = await client.read_work_queue_by_name(
                name=name,
                work_pool_name=work_pool_name
            )
            
            return [types.TextContent(type="text", text=str(work_queue.model_dump()))]
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. It states 'Get a work queue by name' and 'Returns: Work queue details', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no destructive effects). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant with the schema and could be more integrated, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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 the complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Work queue details' includes, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue'. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies 'name: The work queue name', which matches the schema's parameter but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here it's 3 as the description provides basic semantics but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap (e.g., no info on name uniqueness or case sensitivity).

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's purpose: 'Get a work queue by name' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('work queue') with the key constraint 'by name'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_work_queue' (likely by ID) and 'get_work_queues' (list all), though not explicitly named. However, it's not fully specific about what 'get' entails (e.g., retrieve details vs. status).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_work_queue' (possibly by ID) or 'get_work_queues' (list all), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or workspace context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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/allen-munsch/mcp-prefect'

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