Narrareach

Submit your Substack code

complete_substack_verification

Submit the six-digit code the connected account owner provides in this conversation for the same connection and code request. Never guess or automatically repeat a code. Confirmation can resume previously approved articles waiting on this connection; it is not proof of publication. Check an existing schedule afterward, or retry the same saved draft with its original settings if no schedule exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The code request id returned for this same connection.
`code`	Yes	The six-digit code supplied by the user. Never echo it back.
`connectionId`	Yes	The exact Substack connection from the publishing response or get_user_profile.
`scheduledPostId`	No	The exact saved article job from the publishing response. Pass it to resume that same job after verification.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`method`	No
`message`	Yes
`required`	No
`verified`	No
`cancelled`	No
`challenge`	No
`expiresAt`	No
`connection`	No
`nextAction`	No
`instruction`	No
`publication`	Yes
`connectionId`	Yes
`articleRecovery`	No
`resumedArticles`	No
`scheduledPostId`	No
`connectedAccount`	No
`deliveryConfirmed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scheduledPostId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The exact saved article job from the publishing response. Pass it to resume that same job after verification.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / challenge / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "expiresAt": {
-        "format": "date-time",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "id": {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "method": {
-        "anyOf": [
-          {
-            "enum": [
-              "email",
-              "totp"
-            ],
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          {
-            "type": "null"
-          }
-        ]
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "id",
-      "method",
-      "expiresAt"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "expiresAt": {
+        "format": "date-time",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "method": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "enum": [
+              "email",
+              "totp"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "scheduledPostId": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "method",
+      "expiresAt"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / scheduledPostId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / instruction
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / nextAction
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": "wait_for_code",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the mutation/no-idempotency/open-world profile, and the description adds real value beyond that: confirmation can resume previously approved articles waiting on the connection, and 'it is not proof of publication' guards against a false-success read. The never-repeat-a-code caution is an extra behavioral constraint the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. The 'never guess' prohibition and the after-care sentence are both load-bearing; the only mild redundancy is the dual mention of the same connection/code request.

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 mutating, non-idempotent step in a multi-tool verification flow, the description covers the key side effect (resuming pending articles), the failure mode (not proof of publication), and the follow-up path. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines id, code, connectionId, and scheduledPostId. The description gestures at the connection/code-request linkage and at retrying the saved draft, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('submit the six-digit code') and pins the scope to 'the same connection and code request.' It is clearly separable from start_/cancel_/get_substack_verification_status by virtue of being the code-submission step, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Never guess or automatically repeat a code') and post-call guidance ('check an existing schedule afterward, or retry the same saved draft'). What's missing is an explicit pointer to start_substack_verification/get_substack_verification_status as the prerequisite steps, so the ordering is only implied by 'same connection and code request.'

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

All Narrareach 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?