QuantConnect MCP Server

create_compile

Initiate compilation of a QuantConnect trading algorithm project by submitting a compile job request with the project ID.

Instructions

Asynchronously create a compile job request for a project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	The current state of the compile job.
`errors`	No	List of errors with the API call.
`success`	No	Indicate if the API request was successful.
`compileId`	No	Compile Id for a successful build.
`projectId`	No	Id of the project you requested to compile.
`signature`	No	Signature key of compilation.
`parameters`	No	List of files and their associated parameters detected during compilation.
`signatureOrder`	No	Signature order of files to be compiled.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description mentions 'asynchronously' but lacks details on asynchronous behavior, error handling, or required closure via read_compile. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, leaving behavioral gaps.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficient but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter schema and existence of read_compile as a sibling, the description minimally explains creation but misses connecting to the asynchronous lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema describes projectId. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 resource 'compile job request' for a project, distinguishing it from siblings like create_backtest and create_optimization.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites like whether the project must exist.

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

Deploy Server