Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_task_auto_pickup_dryrun

Read-only

Previews which task a write-gated auto-pickup would claim for a given runner and optional topic, showing candidate task and filter counts without changing the queue or bypassing write controls.

Instructions

READ-ONLY: preview which task the write-gated claim WOULD take for a runner/topic.

Reports the candidate task_id, a compact card, and runner/topic filtering counts WITHOUT mutating the parent queue and WITHOUT touching the write gate. Never invokes the write-gated auto-pickup command; uses only the read-only export path. The real write-gated claim tool stays behind AIWORKHUB_ALLOW_WRITES; this preview provides no alternate write path and cannot bypass that gate.

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": {
      "runner": "<runner>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_task_auto_pickup_dryrun"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoTopic to restrict the preview to; omit for no topic filter.
runnerYesRunner the preview is for, e.g. claude or codex.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / runner / description
      Added value: +"Runner the preview is for, e.g. claude or codex."
    • addedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Added value: +"Topic to restrict the preview to; omit for no topic filter."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the actual mechanism ('uses only the read-only export path'), the guarantee that the parent queue is not mutated and the write gate is not touched, and an explicit security property: 'provides no alternate write path and cannot bypass that gate.' That is meaningful behavior an annotation alone cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The 'READ-ONLY:' prefix and purpose sentence are well front-loaded, but the second half repeats the same idea three times: 'WITHOUT mutating,' 'WITHOUT touching the write gate,' 'Never invokes ... no alternate write path ... cannot bypass that gate.' Tightening to one safety sentence would preserve the meaning with less bulk.

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?

With readOnlyHint annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, safety, and gate interaction adequately; the contents of the 'compact card' need not be restated because the output schema covers them. Only the absence of any freshness/consistency caveat for a preview leaves a minor gap.

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% and both parameters (topic, runner) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only a light gloss — that filtering is by runner/topic and that filtering counts are returned — without format or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'preview which task the write-gated claim WOULD take for a runner/topic,' and names the exact outputs (candidate task_id, compact card, filtering counts). It distinguishes itself from the write-gated claim counterpart, though that counterpart is not present in the sibling list, so an agent must infer the distinction from the gate language rather than a sibling name.

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?

Usage is clearly implied as a safe pre-flight for the write-gated auto-pickup: 'preview which task ... WOULD take' plus 'the real write-gated claim tool stays behind AIWORKHUB_ALLOW_WRITES.' It does not state explicit when-not conditions (e.g., when the preview is unnecessary or stale), but the read-only framing gives a competent agent enough to choose it over the mutating claim.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools