submit_ai_pack_for_auditionMove a complete owner-bound draft into the immutable Agent AVCP queue after readiness passes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Tetrees AI Pack product id | |
| confirmation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false), the description reveals that the queue is 'immutable' and that the action requires readiness to have passed, which are important behavioral details. It does not fully explain side effects, but it adds meaningful context beyond the flags.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and follows with necessary conditions, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main action and a key precondition. However, it omits any explanation of the confirmation parameter and does not reference related tools like get_ai_pack_submission_readiness, so the overall context is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
productId has a brief description ('Tetrees AI Pack product id') that aligns with the draft concept, but confirmation has no description. The tool description does not clarify the purpose of the confirmation parameter, leaving its semantics vague. With only 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('complete owner-bound draft' into the 'immutable Agent AVCP queue'), and a condition ('after readiness passes'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_ai_pack_audition or get_ai_pack_submission_readiness by focusing on the submission/transition step.
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 phrase 'after readiness passes' implies a precondition that the user should check readiness first, and 'complete owner-bound' suggests conditions on the draft. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, relying on implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by action and resource, though several clusters (accept/propose/select/list growth, prepare/execute/run) require careful reading of descriptions to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, with clear action prefixes and descriptive resource nouns.
With 26 tools, the set exceeds the recommended range and feels heavy, even though the domain covers publishing, runtime, growth, and reporting workflows.
The toolkit covers the main AI pack lifecycle—authoring, publishing, acquisition, running, searching, and reporting—but lacks explicit delete/revoke operations for drafts or entitlements.