jules-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jules_queue_tasks

Queue repository chores to run sequentially, waiting for each task to finish before starting the next, preventing branch drift and merge conflicts across pull requests.

Instructions

Execute a sequence of chores sequentially on a repository: waits for Task N to complete before launching Task N+1, preventing branch drift and merge conflicts across PRs.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "tasks": "<tasks>"
    },
    "name": "jules_queue_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tasks`	Yes	List of prompt strings or task objects to execute in sequence.
`source`	Yes	Target repository identifier.
`timeout_per_task`	No	Max seconds to wait per task (default 90).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does expose the key sequencing behavior: waiting for Task N to complete before launching Task N+1. However, it does not describe failure behavior, timeout handling, or the repository mutation side effects beyond executing tasks.

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 a single sentence with the core operation front-loaded. There is mild redundancy between 'sequence of chores sequentially' and the explicit wait-before-next explanation, but no filler or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers why and how the tool sequences tasks but omits return values, failure modes, and timeout consequences. It is sufficient for selecting the tool, but less complete for predicting the full call experience.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tasks, source, and timeout_per_task adequately. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond referring to tasks as 'chores', which is not especially informative.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: executing a sequence of chores sequentially on a repository. The wait-for-previous-task semantics clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like jules_batch_dispatch or jules_dispatch_and_wait. It fully conveys the tool's purpose without relying on the name alone.

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?

The description gives a clear use context by explaining the sequential execution prevents branch drift and merge conflicts across PRs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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