Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BootForm

by com.bootform
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Moderate a feed submission

bootform_moderate_submission
Destructive

Decides whether a submission appears in the form's public content feed: 'approved' shows it there, 'rejected' keeps it out. Use it only on a form with the content feed turned on (bootform_configure_form content_feed_enabled); find the submission with bootform_get_submissions. It can also set or clear the submission's item status (for example "taken") when the form has one. Pass status, feed_status, or both. Approving or rejecting can be reversed by calling it again, but 'approved' also resets the visitor report count, and feed_status 'clear' deletes every visitor mark; neither comes back, and those visitors can't mark or report it again. Repeating 'set' restarts the item's hide timer.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "bootform_moderate_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo'approved' or 'rejected'. Optional when feed_status is given.
form_idYesThe form's id
feed_statusNoItem status: 'set' marks it with the form's status now, whatever the visitor count; 'clear' removes the status and every visitor mark. Needs an item status on the form (bootform_configure_form item_status_label).
submission_idYesThe submission's id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond by warning that 'approved' resets the visitor report count, 'clear' deletes every visitor mark, those effects are irreversible, and repeated 'set' restarts the hide timer. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries substantive information, though the prerequisities, mode semantics, and destructive consequences are packed into one dense block that could be more clearly segmented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, alternative tools, parameter combinations, and irreversible side effects for a destructive mutation tool with no output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the relationship between status and feed_status, the 'or both' optionality, and the practical effect of each mode. Some overlap with the schema's own descriptions keeps it from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Decides whether a submission appears in the form's public content feed', then defines approved/rejected semantics. This clearly separates it from siblings like bootform_mark_submission or bootform_get_submissions.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (content feed must be enabled, pointing to bootform_configure_form content_feed_enabled) and routes the agent to bootform_get_submissions to find the submission. It also gives a combination rule: 'Pass status, feed_status, or both.'

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

All BootForm toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources