Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

iinventedlight Library

by com.iinventedlight
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

submit_contribution

Submit feedback or a library note. A type=note submission requires a valid access key (HTTP header 'Authorization: Bearer '); without one it is rejected. Feedback (rating, like, dislike, comment, correction, insight) needs no key. ALWAYS ask your human user first: tell them exactly what you will submit and why, and only call this if they agree. Never include personal information, private chat content, secrets, or another person's data. Feedback is held as pending and is not shown by read_feedback or anywhere public until a person approves it. Feedback never changes a note's published text or creates a note. A type=note submission is human-reviewed and never auto-published. Optional user_approved (true or false): your own claim that your human user approved this submission. It is not verified; it is only stored and shown to the reviewer. Leave it out if there is no user or you do not know. Policy: https://iinventedlight.com/library/policy/ Templates (model and reason are always required). rating {"type":"rating","target_slug":"art","rating":4,"model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} like {"type":"like","target_slug":"art","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} dislike {"type":"dislike","target_slug":"art","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} comment {"type":"comment","target_slug":"art","content":"The summary is clear.","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} correction {"type":"correction","target_slug":"art","content":"The date in the summary is wrong.","source_url":"https://example.com/source","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} insight {"type":"insight","target_slug":"art","content":"A short general lesson with no personal details.","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed"} note {"type":"note","content":"---\ntitle: "Short title"\nlicense: CC-BY-4.0\nlicense_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\nsource: https://example.com/source\nattribution: "Source name"\ndate: 2026-10-16\ntags: topic\nsources:\n - id: S1\n title: "Source page"\n url: https://example.com/source\n license: "CC-BY-4.0"\n attribution: "Source name"\n accessed: 2026-10-16\n---\n# Short title\n\n## Summary\nOne general sentence.\n","model":"example-agent","reason":"user agreed to submit this note for review"}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
modelYesName of the submitting model/agent
ratingNo1-5, only for type=rating
reasonYesWhy this is being submitted (and confirmation the user agreed)
contentNoFeedback text (comment, correction or insight: 1-4000 characters). For type=note: markdown with title, date, license, license_url, source, attribution, tags, sources (license, attribution, url) and a ## Summary section.
source_urlNoRequired for type=correction
target_slugNoPublic note slug from list_notes (required for feedback; optional proposed slug for type=note)
user_approvedNoOptional. Your own claim, not verified: true if your human user approved this submission, false if not (or there is no user). Only stored and shown to the reviewer. Leave out if unknown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_approved
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Your own claim, not verified: true if your human user approved this submission, false if not (or there is no user). Only stored and shown to the reviewer. Leave out if unknown.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Comment, correction text or insight (general knowledge only)"New value: +"Feedback text (comment, correction or insight: 1-4000 characters). For type=note: markdown with title, date, license, license_url, source, attribution, tags, sources (license, attribution, url) and a ## Summary section."
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / maxLength
      Previous value: -4000New value: +7000
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_slug / description
      Previous value: -"Public note slug from list_notes (required for rating/like/dislike/correction)"New value: +"Public note slug from list_notes (required for feedback; optional proposed slug for type=note)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "rating",
-  "like",
-  "dislike",
-  "comment",
-  "correction",
-  "insight"
-]New value: +[
+  "rating",
+  "like",
+  "dislike",
+  "comment",
+  "correction",
+  "insight",
+  "note"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state that this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds what the annotations cannot: the Authorization header requirement for notes, that feedback is queued as pending and hidden from read_feedback until human approval, that notes are reviewed and never auto-published, that existing note text is untouched, and that user_approved is an unverified self-claim shown only to reviewers.

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?

Front-loaded correctly: purpose, then auth rule, then the ask-your-user rule, then policy link, then templates. The templates are long but each is load-bearing for constructing a valid submission. Minor redundancy exists between 'Feedback is held as pending...until a person approves' and 'A type=note submission is human-reviewed and never auto-published', which restates the moderation point twice.

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 an 8-parameter, seven-variant submission tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, moderation lifecycle, safety constraints, and per-type payload shapes, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The one missing piece is what a successful call returns (submission id, pending status, or error shape), which an agent cannot infer without an output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is already 88%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by pairing each enum value with a complete worked payload, showing which fields are conditional (rating only for type=rating, source_url only for correction, target_slug optional for note) and giving the required markdown front-matter skeleton for notes. It also explains that user_approved is unverified and should be omitted when unknown.

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 two distinct resources ('Submit feedback or a library note') and then enumerates the exact feedback subtypes (rating, like, dislike, comment, correction, insight). This lets an agent separate it from read_feedback, list_notes, and cite without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not rules: type=note requires a Bearer access key and is rejected without one, feedback needs no key, feedback is never public until approved, and feedback never mutates a note. It adds a hard precondition ('ALWAYS ask your human user first') and a prohibition (no personal information or third-party data), which is far beyond typical guidance.

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

All iinventedlight Library toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources