Skip to main content
Glama

ProductClank

by com.productclank

Submit a posted reply to earn

submit_participation

Submit the URL of a reply the connected user posted for a claimed opportunity (reply_id from find_opportunities). Works for X, Reddit, YouTube and LinkedIn replies. Every claim is attributed to the user's linked handle for that platform, so they must have it connected on their ProductClank profile — X replies are additionally author-verified against the live post at submit time, and the others are verified afterwards by the same checks that cover web submissions. If the platform handle is missing the call fails saying which one to add. Awards points, and credits when the campaign grants them. Rejected submissions add strikes (3 strikes = blocked), so only submit replies the user actually posted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reply_idYesThe reply draft's id from find_opportunities
reply_urlYesURL of the reply the user posted on X

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the handle-connection requirement, X's live verification and other platforms' deferred verification, the failure behavior when handle is missing, and the strike penalty for rejections. This substantially clarifies the tool's side effects and risks.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and then adds relevant caveats about identity verification, failure behavior, and consequences. It is compact enough, though the last sentence contains multiple dependent clauses and concepts that could be better segmented.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error behavior, and reward/penalty outcomes well. It does not explicitly state the full response structure, but an agent can gather enough to predict success/failure and side effects, making it complete for a 2-param tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, aside from confirming reply_id’s origin and noting the URL applies across platforms. It does not significantly enrich either parameter's semantics.

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?

This description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit the URL of the reply the connected user posted for a claimed opportunity.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like submit_campaign_work by limiting it to posted replies and naming the platforms and the source id. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

The description provides strong contextual guidance: only submit actual posted replies, requires reply_id from find_opportunities, and warns about missing handle failure and strike penalties. It does not explicitly point to alternative tools or say when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All ProductClank toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to a distinct resource and action: campaigns, posts, products, research, content spaces, and submissions. A few pairs are close—`create_campaign` vs `create_content_campaign` and `check_balance` vs `get_earnings`—but the detailed descriptions make the intended selection clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set largely follows a consistent `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (`list_campaigns`, `generate_posts`, `update_campaign`, `submit_participation`). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: `credit_history` lacks a verb, and `create_campaign` reads as generic next to the more specific `create_content_campaign`.

Tool Count3/5

30 tools is high and makes the server feel heavy, but the domain genuinely spans products, credits, campaigns, research, post discovery, content spaces, boosts, and participation rewards. The breadth mostly earns the count, though it sits on the wrong side of the typical 3–15 range.

Completeness4/5

The core end-to-end workflow is covered: create and configure campaigns, discover and refine posts, run research, find opportunities, submit work, and measure results. Gaps exist but are minor for the central purpose—product listings can’t be updated or deleted, and delegates can be added but not removed.

Resources