Transpile a circuit for a specified IBM Quantum backend and report depth and gate counts without submitting a job, enabling pre-run validation of cost and feasibility.
Transpile for a specific IBM backend and report depth/gate counts without submitting a job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| circuit | Yes | ||
| instance | No | ||
| measured | No | ||
| backend_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully clarifies that no job is submitted and that the output is depth/gate-count reporting, though it does not mention backend access requirements or external-call behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. The key action and the no-job constraint appear immediately.
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?
Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description does not compensate for the 0% input-schema description coverage. It leaves the measured flag, instance parameter, and circuit structure unexplained, which matters for correct invocation.
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 carry parameter meaning. It only indirectly covers backend_name and the circuit concept, and does not explain the circuit format, the optional instance parameter, or the measured flag.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: transpile a circuit for an IBM backend and report depth/gate counts. The phrase 'without submitting a job' clearly distinguishes it from the job-submitting siblings such as quantum_run_sampler and quantum_run_estimator.
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?
It implies the tool should be used for previewing transpilation metrics before running a job, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'without submitting a job' clause gives useful context, but selection guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.