New Runtime public records

Tell New Runtime which stories of a week mattered

submit_relevance_report

After reading a week corpus (get_week_corpus) for your user and only with their approval of the exact JSON: report which stories mattered (picked ids from the corpus with verdict act, read or watch), interest tags, what was missing, or a comment. Send at least one of picked or comment. Free. Reports are not published; they are reviewed weekly. The receipt carries reader_key: keep it for your user and send it with the next report; the site index ordered for them is then at https://newruntime.com/agent-inbox/corpus/{week}/{reader_key}.md (a template: put the corpus week, such as the week field of get_week_corpus, in place of {week} and the key in place of {reader_key}). Schema: https://newruntime.com/agent-inbox/schema.json.

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": {
      "week": "<week>"
    },
    "name": "submit_relevance_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`week`	Yes	The corpus week: the manifest's week, YYYY-MM-DD.
`agent`	No	Optional agent or product name.
`corpus`	No	Which corpora you read.
`picked`	No	Stories that mattered to your reader, by corpus id (site slug, tg-..., dg-...).
`comment`	No
`contact`	No	Optional contact for follow-up questions. Never published.
`missing`	No	What your reader needed that the week did not cover.
`interests`	No	Up to 8 interest tags of your reader; normalized to lowercase ^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{1,40}$ (spaces become -).
`reader_key`	No	Reader key from an earlier receipt. Omit it on the first report and one is minted.
`not_interested`	No	Up to 8 tags your reader does not want; normalized like interests. The personalized site order moves them down.
`profile_source`	No	Where the reader profile came from: instruction_files, session_logs, memory, user_answers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) by disclosing that reports are not published but reviewed weekly, that submission is free, and that the response is a receipt carrying a reader_key that must be retained and reused. It also explains the downstream artifact the key unlocks (a personalized ordered corpus index at a documented URL).

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-loads the prerequisite and consent condition, which is the right ordering, and every clause is substantive. The URL template explanation arrives as one long mid-sentence parenthetical and slightly disrupts the flow of the send/receipt loop.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description still covers the full lifecycle: read corpus, obtain approval, submit, receive reader_key, reuse it next week. Privacy, cost, and the follow-up URL are all addressed, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 91%, so the schema already carries most semantics; the description mostly restates the picked/comment minimum and reader_key usage. It does add genuinely new meaning by explaining how week and reader_key compose into the inbox URL template, which the schema does not say.

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?

Names a specific verb and artifact: report which stories of a week corpus mattered, via picked ids with verdict act/read/watch, interest tags, missing, or a comment. It also names the prerequisite sibling get_week_corpus, so an agent can distinguish this submission tool from corpus retrieval without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition (read the week corpus for your user) and the consent constraint (only with their approval of the exact JSON), plus the minimum payload rule (at least one of picked or comment). It does not differentiate this tool from the other submission siblings such as submit_correction or submit_usage_receipt, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a 'report'.

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

All New Runtime public records 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?