Skip to main content
Glama

directory

by com.submitmap

create_project

Store a product on the account. Before asking the maker anything, use what you can already see: a README, package metadata, the site's own copy and title, an assets or public folder. A maker working in their product's repository should be able to say 'add my product to SubmitMap' and get a filled-in project back, with questions only about what is genuinely not there. Fill in as much as you can, leave the rest, and come back with update_project. Facts drive what it qualifies for; the pack is what you will paste into forms later. Ask about images early: most platforms want a square logo and many want a cover, and every asset in the pack is two fields, the public address (logoUrl) and the file on the maker's machine (logoFile), because a form uploads the file and only the address can be shown back to them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
nameYes
packNo
factsNoSame shape qualify_project takes: stage, pricingModel, categories, and the booleans. It is also where the two answers that decide a run order live once the maker has given them (`goal`, `budget`, and `launchAt` if they named a date), which is what stops the next session asking again. Leave domainRating out: the url is measured against Ahrefs on the way in and the measured number is what gets stored, so a guess here is overwritten anyway.
pitchNoOne paragraph in the maker's own words.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so well: it explains that facts drive qualification while pack is what gets pasted into forms, that assets come as URL/file pairs, and that logoFile is a local path that cannot be displayed. It stops short of covering auth, idempotency, or error behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 paragraph is dense but focused: the opening sentence states purpose, and the following sentences each add workflow or image-handling guidance without repeating schema content. It could be more scannable with structuring, but no sentence feels like padding.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description provides enough operational context for a complex nested creation tool: it clarifies pack vs facts, image/file behavior, the update_project handoff, and the expected filled-in result. Missing explicit return value, error, and duplicate-handling details prevent a perfect score.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the conceptual split between facts and pack and detailing the URL/file duality for logo and media assets. It does not enumerate top-level url/name/pitch, but schema already describes pitch and many nested fields, so the partial compensation is still strong.

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?

The description opens with a concrete action, 'Store a product on the account', and later contrasts itself with update_project by saying to 'come back with update_project'. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings and not simply a restatement of its name.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: first use visible evidence from README, metadata, and site copy, fill as much as possible, ask only about genuinely missing facts, then follow up with update_project. It also prioritizes image questions early, which is concrete operational advice.

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

All directory 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 target a distinct resource/action: projects vs platforms vs submissions vs account, and pairings like search_platforms/get_platform and qualify_project/plan_submissions are separated by clear scope. The only mild ambiguity is get_platform with brief=true vs submission_playbook, since both can return the same form brief, but one is generic and the other is project-specific.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun snake_case (create_project, list_submissions, qualify_project, record_submission). The exceptions are whoami, a common idiom rather than verb_noun, and submission_playbook, a noun phrase instead of something like get_submission_playbook, so the pattern is strong but not perfect.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is comfortably within the well-scoped range for a domain covering projects, platforms, submissions, planning, and account identity. Each tool maps to a recognizable workflow step and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core lifecycle: create/read/update projects, search/read platforms, qualify and plan, list/record submissions, and identify the account. It lacks delete_project and a way to retrieve an existing plan or edit a submission record, but those are workable gaps rather than blockers.

Resources