Optimize queueing network capacity
Choose minimum-cost integer capacity additions across a routed open queueing network using traffic equations, M/M/c waits, and exact budget dynamic programming.
What it's for
Extends single-queue staffing into a network-wide workflow capacity plan with bottleneck routing and an explicit mean-time SLA.
What you give it
Inputs split into evidence read from your connected systems, calibration your team owns, and numerical controls that affect precision but never the result's meaning.
| Field | Type | Role | Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_units | integer ≥ 0, ≤ 100000 | Your calibration | Yes |
| max_detail_rows | integer ≥ 1, ≤ 500 | Numerical control | Optional |
| stations | array of objects (7 fields) ≥ 2 items | Evidence | Yes |
| target_mean_time_hours | number > 0 | Your calibration | Yes |
Each stations
record
| Field | Type | Required |
|---|---|---|
| additional_server_cost_units | integer (≥ 1, ≤ 100000) | Yes |
| current_servers | integer (≥ 1, ≤ 10000) | Yes |
| external_arrival_rate_per_hour | number (≥ 0) | Yes |
| id | string (non-empty) | Yes |
| maximum_servers | integer (≥ 1, ≤ 10000) | Yes |
| routing_probabilities | object | Yes |
| service_rate_per_server_per_hour | number (> 0) | Yes |
{
"budget_units": 4,
"stations": [
{
"additional_server_cost_units": 1,
"current_servers": 1,
"external_arrival_rate_per_hour": 4,
"id": "intake",
"maximum_servers": 3,
"routing_probabilities": {
"review": 0.8
},
"service_rate_per_server_per_hour": 5
},
{
"additional_server_cost_units": 1,
"current_servers": 2,
"external_arrival_rate_per_hour": 0,
"id": "review",
"maximum_servers": 4,
"routing_probabilities": {},
"service_rate_per_server_per_hour": 2
}
],
"target_mean_time_hours": 1
} What you get back
This is the actual output of running the example above — computed by the same function the platform calls, not an illustration.
{
"assumptions": [
"External arrivals are Poisson, station service times are exponential, parallel servers are identical, and routing is stationary and independent of congestion.",
"The open network has product-form Jackson traffic equations; blocking, finite buffers, class priorities, batching, and synchronized work are excluded.",
"Server costs are integer planning units and routing volume is unaffected by capacity changes; validate recommended stations with a richer discrete-event twin before deployment.",
"Stations represent workflow stages or services, not people, and capacity recommendations must not be converted into automatic individual employment decisions."
],
"decision": "network_sla_capacity_plan_available",
"method": "open_mmc_queue_network_multiple_choice_knapsack_v1",
"network": {
"baseline_mean_time_hours": 2.1111,
"budget_units": 4,
"external_arrival_rate_per_hour": 4,
"planned_mean_time_hours": 0.7163,
"spectral_radius": 0,
"target_mean_time_hours": 1,
"target_met": true,
"used_budget_units": 2
},
"sample": {
"budget_states_evaluated": 10,
"details_returned": 2,
"details_truncated": false,
"stations": 2
},
"station_plan": [
{
"added_servers": 1,
"cost_units": 1,
"current_servers": 1,
"effective_arrival_rate_per_hour": 4,
"recommended_servers": 2,
"selected_time_contribution_hours": 0.2381,
"station_id": "intake",
"time_reduction_hours": 0.7619,
"visits_per_external_arrival": 1
},
{
"added_servers": 1,
"cost_units": 1,
"current_servers": 2,
"effective_arrival_rate_per_hour": 3.2,
"recommended_servers": 3,
"selected_time_contribution_hours": 0.4782, Truncated for display — the full payload is 50 lines.
How it works
Network & dependency analysis — Trace how load, failure and knowledge propagate through a graph of teams, services or components.
- 1 Choose minimum-cost integer capacity additions across a routed open queueing network using traffic equations, M/M/c waits, and exact budget dynamic programming.
- 2 Evaluate the method-specific diagnostics and gates returned by the function, then abstain unless the declared decision clears them under locally governed thresholds.
Before you trust it
Every tool in the catalog ships with the conditions under which its answer is meaningful — and the conditions under which it should abstain instead of guessing.
Assumptions & guardrails
- Nodes, edges, direction, time window, missing-link policy, and aggregation boundary represent the coordination or dependency mechanism of interest.
- Structural centrality, fragility, or clustering describes a modeled graph and must not be interpreted as intent, guilt, or personal value.
Minimum evidence
- stations: at least 2 rows/items
- budget_units: required and organization-defined
- target_mean_time_hours: required and organization-defined
How to validate it
Validate on held-out periods or aggregate units, perturb edge definitions and missing links, and report sensitivity to graph construction before using structural rankings.
Calibrating it to your org
Same for everyone
The mathematical kernel, validation rules, method version, and JSON output semantics are organization-independent; no tenant-trained coefficients or company benchmark is embedded in the function.
Specific to you
- external arrival rate by state
- service rate per server
- routing probabilities
- current and maximum server-equivalent capacity
- integer capacity cost units
- mean-time SLA and budget
Calibration workflow
- 1 Define the management decision, target outcome, aggregate unit, privacy boundary, cadence, and prediction/intervention horizon for this organization.
- 2 Build a tenant-scoped historical cohort using only information available before each prediction or decision; preserve zero periods, censoring, assignment probabilities, and unresolved outcomes when the method requires them.
- 3 Estimate statistical parameters on training history, but obtain costs, utilities, risk tolerance, practical-effect thresholds, capacity, and policy constraints from accountable decision owners.
- 4 Validate on later time windows or held-out aggregate units at the deployment grain, against a simple baseline and the function-specific validation strategy.
- 5 Deploy only if the returned decision clears evidence, overlap, calibration, robustness, and guardrail checks; warning, unsupported, schema-gap, and fallback decisions are abstentions.
- 6 Monitor realized outcomes, data drift, coverage, and decision regret; recalibrate at a governed cadence or after a detected regime/definition change, never merely because a stakeholder dislikes the result.
Call it from your AI
You don't wire up 388 tools in your MCP client. The GitRevio MCP server exposes 18 tools, three of which let an agent search the catalog, read a tool's schema, and run it — so the assistant finds this one on its own.
gitrevio_capabilities_search
{ "q": "choose minimumcost integer capacity additions across" }
→ finds "optimize_queueing_network_capacity"
gitrevio_capability_describe
{ "capability_id": "optimize_queueing_network_capacity" }
→ returns the input schema and agent guidance shown on this page
gitrevio_capability_run
{ "capability_id": "optimize_queueing_network_capacity", "arguments": { ... } }
→ returns the result shown above Works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, Goose and Aider. See the MCP server.
Related tools
Allocate attention budget
Use exact knapsack optimization to allocate limited expert-review time by expected avoided loss.
Allocate capacity by marginal value
Allocate indivisible aggregate capacity across initiative-specific diminishing marginal-value scenario curves, activation thresholds, hard minimum commitments, unit cost, and portfolio CVaR with discrete next-unit value and explicit solver certainty.
Allocate capacity nash bargaining
Allocate discrete shared capacity by weighted Nash social welfare over concave team utility curves, with disagreement guarantees and a utilitarian counterfactual.
Calculate engineering runway
Compare three-point roadmap effort with three-point team capacity and expose unfunded commitments.
Calculate hidden work tax
Translate unplanned work, rework, incidents, and coordination into capacity and cost leakage.
Calculate shadow price of capacity
Calculate lumpy, discrete capacity shadow prices by re-optimizing a scenario-valued initiative portfolio after a governed increment to each resource, with CVaR penalty and explicit exact or heuristic solver status.