Skip to main content
Glama

Read the submission state

get_submission_state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Whether the game can be submitted to moderation now and, if not, why — the first rule the submit itself would refuse with. reason, in that order: ORGANIZATION_BANNED, MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE (the game cannot go to moderation, catalogAvailable is false: publish it to the sandbox), missing certification, a cooldown after a failed moderation, the state of the build being submitted (ARCHIVE_PENDING, ARCHIVE_FAILED, ARCHIVE_CHECKING while its check is still running, or the archive’s own reason code — get_archive_status explains it), ARCHIVE_NOT_BUILDABLE (the build has no Bridge version or Bridge config to build with: integrate the Bridge SDK and upload it again), FORM_INCOMPLETE (details names the fields to fill or fix, the title included: empty or with non-Latin letters), COVERS_INCOMPLETE (not all three covers are in place: upload the ones emptySlots names), or nothing changed since the last submit. message is the console’s wording of that refusal. Name in archiveId the build you are asking about — the one a submit would freeze. While catalogAvailable is false the answer is always MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE, whatever the build: never tell the developer the game can be submitted. A game never submitted to moderation, or one moderation rejected or postponed, whose sandbox is not blocked (get_sandbox_state), opens once its sandbox reaches the targets shown on its sandbox card in the console — the play time among them is set by the game’s category — counted once a day. A game moderation took off, or whose sandbox is blocked, only Playgama can reopen: the sandbox targets do not. A game Playgama restricted stays closed whatever its targets and track, until Playgama lifts the restriction. A human submits to moderation in the console. With reviewType AUTO the verdict is send_playgama_catalog_update’s: the same reasons, then AUTO_REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE — the game is not live in the Playgama catalog (autoReviewPlatforms is empty), so only moderation can take it.

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": {
      "applicationId": "<applicationId>",
      "archiveId": "<archiveId>"
    },
    "name": "get_submission_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archiveIdYesThe build this answer judges — the archive a submit would name. get_application and get_launch_steps answer the archives of the game; an archive of another game is refused
reviewTypeNoOptional. MANUAL (left out): judge a submit to moderation, which a human sends from the console. AUTO: judge send_playgama_catalog_update — an update of the game live in the Playgama catalog without moderation
applicationIdYesGame id from list_applications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / applicationId / description
      Previous value: -"Application (game) id, as returned by list_applications"New value: +"Game id from list_applications"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewType
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional. MANUAL (left out): judge a submit to moderation, which a human sends from the console. AUTO: judge send_playgama_catalog_update — an update of the game live in the Playgama catalog without moderation",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "MANUAL",
      +    "AUTO"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / archiveId
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The build this answer judges — the archive a submit would name. get_application and get_launch_steps answer the archives of the game; an archive of another game is refused",
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "applicationId"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "applicationId",
      +  "archiveId"
      +]
  4. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: the precedence order of refusal reasons, the guarantee that catalogAvailable=false always yields MODERATION_UNAVAILABLE, and the instruction never to tell the developer the game can be submitted. Offset by scope creep into sandbox targets, daily play-time counting and Playgama restrictions, which describe a different question and add noise rather than transparency about this call.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

One dense block of roughly 250 words with nested parentheses, semicolon-chained reason codes, and a mid-stream shift from submission eligibility to sandbox reopening, daily target counting and Playgama restrictions. The reason-code list earns its place, but the reopening paragraph does not and actively obscures the front-loaded answer. Structure is list-like rather than prioritized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must cover return values, and it does name reason, message, details, emptySlots, catalogAvailable and archiveId. What it never states is the success shape: what reason/message contain when submission is allowed. A 3-parameter read tool needs that to be called and interpreted confidently.

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%, with archiveId and reviewType already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates archiveId's role (the build a submit would freeze) and expands on reviewType AUTO by listing its post-verdict reason AUTO_REVIEW_UNAVAILABLE, which is a modest addition beyond the schema. Most parameter meaning is still carried by the schema itself.

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 opening states a specific question the tool answers: whether the game can be submitted to moderation now and, if not, the first rule the submit would refuse with. It distinguishes itself from siblings by deferring archive-level detail to get_archive_status and AUTO verdicts to send_playgama_catalog_update, and by noting a human submits in the console. The core purpose is clear, but it is buried under a long enumeration and a drifting paragraph about when a game reopens, which muddies what the tool actually returns.

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?

Useful routing is present: use reviewType AUTO to judge send_playgama_catalog_update, use get_archive_status for the archive's own reason code, use get_sandbox_state for blocking. It also implicitly states when NOT to use it for submitting, since a human submits from the console. However there are no explicit exclusions for the reopening/targets question it digresses into, leaving an agent unsure whether this tool answers that too.

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