Narrareach

Request a Substack code

start_substack_verification

Request verification for the selected Substack connection after its owner asks to continue. Returns an email or authenticator code prompt, or verified: true when Substack confirms without a code. Confirmation can resume previously approved articles waiting on this connection. Does not create a new schedule. Check existing article status before retrying. When a code is needed, ask in a normal chat message, end your turn, and wait for the user’s reply. If a code prompt closes without an answer, keep waiting in the conversation; do not request another code or retry publishing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context on top: the two possible outcomes (code prompt vs. verified: true), the side effect of resuming previously approved articles, the explicit absence of schedule creation, and the retry/idempotency hazard around re-requesting codes.

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?

Six sentences, all load-bearing, with the return-shape and scope statements front-loaded ahead of the workflow instructions. The final sentence about code prompts closing without an answer is slightly long but covers a real failure mode an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief mention of return values is bonus rather than a gap. Combined with the 100%-covered schema and the annotations, the description covers trigger, outcome, side effects, and retry hazards — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 both connectionId and scheduledPostId are already fully documented in the schema itself, including where to obtain them. The description only restates the resume semantics of scheduledPostId that the schema already spells out, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Request verification for the selected Substack connection') and scopes it to the point after its owner asks to continue. It implicitly separates itself from publishing actions ('Does not create a new schedule'), but never names the adjacent siblings it must be distinguished from, such as get_substack_verification_status or complete_substack_verification.

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?

Explicit trigger ('after its owner asks to continue'), explicit pre-check ('Check existing article status before retrying') and explicit prohibitions ('do not request another code or retry publishing'). The turn-taking instruction — ask in a normal chat message, end your turn, wait — is unambiguous operational guidance an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?