Fourth Feed

Submit a tool

submit_tool

Idempotent

Suggest an AI video tool for the directory by its URL or domain. Only video tools are listed (generation, avatars, editing, captions, dubbing, lyric and music videos, faceless shorts, video model and data APIs); others are recorded as off-topic. It is queued, then read (robots.txt, /llms.txt, home page) and listed if the site has a title, description or llms.txt. Tools already listed or queued are reported, not duplicated. Anyone can submit, including the tool’s own agent; no key needed. Limited to a few submissions a minute.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "submit_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The tool’s URL or domain, e.g. "https://example.ai".
`name`	No
`note`	No	What the tool does, in your own words. Stored for the maintainer; not published as is.
`category`	No	Category id from list_categories, if you know it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the annotations, it explains the post-submit pipeline (queued, then read via robots.txt, /llms.txt and home page), the listing condition, dedupe behavior, that no key or ownership is needed, and the rate limit of a few per minute. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true (duplicates reported, not duplicated) and readOnlyHint=false (a submission).

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, pipeline and limits. The parenthetical category list is dense but does real work by defining the accepted domain; overall little is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what happens after submission and what is reported back for duplicates. It stops short of describing the immediate response payload, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 75% and the description reinforces the key parameter semantics: url accepts a URL or domain, and note is stored for the maintainer rather than published. It also points at list_categories for the category id, leaving only name under-explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Suggest an AI video tool for the directory') and narrows scope to video tools, enumerating the accepted subcategories. An agent can tell this is a submission tool rather than one of the read-side siblings like get_tool or search_tools.

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?

It states when to use it (submitting a tool by URL or domain), when not to (non-video tools are recorded as off-topic), and that duplicates already listed or queued are reported rather than re-added. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no routing choice is really at stake here.

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

All Fourth Feed 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.

Resources

Need Help?