objekts Production Desk

Send production brief to objekts

submit_production_brief

Destructive

Use this only after the user explicitly confirms that the prepared production brief, one reply channel (email or Telegram), and selected files should be sent to objekts for human production review. A contactless human-review submission is not allowed because the producer must be able to answer the user. When the host already has the files, pass them through the files field instead of making the user upload them again. Do not use it for local analysis, estimation, or when the user has said not to send anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brief`	Yes
`files`	No
`contact`	Yes
`confirmed`	Yes
`selectedAssetIds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`submissionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "confirmed",
-  "brief"
-]New value: +[
+  "confirmed",
+  "contact",
+  "brief"
+]

Changed13 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / company / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / company / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```

changedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / email / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "email",
-    "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "email",
+    "maxLength": 320,
+    "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / name / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / name / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```

addedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / telegram / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / contact / properties / telegram / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```
addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / download_url / maxLength
```
Added value: +4096
```
addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / file_id / maxLength
```
Added value: +512
```
addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / file_name / maxLength
```
Added value: +255
```
addedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / mime_type / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
addedInput schema / properties / selectedAssetIds / items / maxLength
```
Added value: +128
```
addedInput schema / properties / selectedAssetIds / maxItems
```
Added value: +50
```

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: a mandatory user-confirmation gate, the requirement that a reply channel exist so the producer can respond, and the instruction to reuse host-held files rather than forcing a re-upload. It stops short of describing rate limits, delivery/acknowledgement behavior, or what happens to a previously submitted brief.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: the confirmation gate is front-loaded first, then the reply-channel rule, then the file-passing optimization, then the exclusions. Dense but not padded. It could have merged the last two exclusions, but nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and nested contact/files structures are handled well enough in prose. Remaining gaps are the unmentioned confirmed and selectedAssetIds fields and no statement of what a successful submission produces. For a destructive, open-world submission tool the description is solid but not fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so for most parameters: files (pass host-held files instead of re-uploading), contact (one reply channel, email or Telegram), brief, and a confirmed gate. It never names the confirmed flag, selectedAssetIds, or the maxItems/cardinality limits, so the mapping from prose to the five schema fields is incomplete even though the intent is clear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (send production brief to objekts for human production review) and draws a hard boundary against siblings: 'Do not use it for local analysis, estimation...' rules out estimate_production, and the emphasis on human review separates it from status/update tools. An agent can identify this as the terminal submission step without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit preconditions (only after the user explicitly confirms the brief, one reply channel, and selected files), an explicit prohibition (contactless submission not allowed, because the producer must be able to answer the user), and explicit exclusions (no local analysis, no estimation, not when the user said not to send). This is close to a model when/when-not statement.

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

All objekts Production Desk tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.