Skip to main content
Glama

Mark an application as submitted

mark_application_submitted
Idempotent

Records that the user submitted an application themselves. Only call this after the user says they submitted it: Litjob never submits applications. Free.

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": {
      "application_id": "<application_id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_application_submitted"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
application_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds that the tool only records a user action rather than submitting anything and notes it is 'Free,' which clarifies side effects and cost beyond annotations. It does not detail what fields change, but the annotations lower that burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, and 'Free.' efficiently communicates cost. No filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key semantic and usage risks, including the crucial warning that Litjob does not submit. It could say more about application_id, but overall it is sufficient.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The sole parameter application_id is undocumented in the schema (0% description coverage), and the description never mentions it or where to obtain it. The name is inferable, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Records') and resource ('application submitted') and clarifies the user-initiated scope ('the user submitted an application themselves'), distinguishing it from any automated submission. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: 'Only call this after the user says they submitted it' and reinforces that Litjob never submits applications, which effectively states when not to call it. No alternative tool is named, but none is needed for this action.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources