Retrieve the Hydra build queue ordered by priority, with per-jobset queue sizes and currently running builds to monitor CI backlog and active work.
Get the build queue (highest priority first), its size by jobset, and the builds running right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| instance | No | Configured Hydra instance; omitted uses the default |
| 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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the queue is ordered highest priority first, and the result includes jobset-level size and currently running builds.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that earns every clause by naming the queue, its ordering, its jobset breakdown, and the running-builds component.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to establish purpose and scope. It does that well, though the unexplained limit parameter is a small remaining gap 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 only 50%: instance is documented in the schema, but limit is not. The description does not explain what limit controls, whether it truncates the queue, or how ordering interacts with it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource (get the build queue) and enumerates what is returned: queue order, size by jobset, and currently running builds. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_build or get_jobset.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the queue-inspection tool from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.