Skip to main content
Glama

directory

by com.submitmap

get_platform

Full record for one platform: eligibility, disqualifiers, step-by-step submission instructions, requirements, gotchas and expected outcome. All of that is free, and it is what decides whether this product should be submitted here at all. Pass brief: true to also get agentPrompt, the brief for that platform's form, and agentGotchas, the traps that only bite something filling it (a placeholder that contradicts its label, a second email input belonging to a newsletter, a honeypot). The brief spends one of the account's tracked platforms, so ask for it once the maker has decided to fill this form, not while you are still choosing between platforms. For a stored project, submission_playbook returns the same brief with the maker's values already in it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesPlatform slug, e.g. "product-hunt".
briefNoInclude agentPrompt and agentGotchas. This is the paid half and it spends a tracked platform, once, for good. Leave it out while you are deciding where to submit: eligibility, disqualifiers, gotchas, approval time and link type all come back either way. A platform this account has already spent a slot on is free to brief again, so re-reading one costs nothing.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the brief option spends a tracked platform, that already-spent platforms are free to re-brief, and what each response tier contains. It omits error/edge-case behavior, but the core operational and cost-related traits are well covered.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence earns its place: the free contents are front-loaded, the paid option is explained with concrete examples, and the tool-routing caveat is placed at the end. It is dense but not bloated, and all guidance is decision-relevant.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns in both modes and covers the key operational nuance of spending a tracked platform. It also gives enough context for an agent to decide between plain lookup, brief inclusion, and submission_playbook. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 schema already describes both parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the cost implication of brief=true, when to omit it, and that submission_playbook is the relevant alternative for stored projects. This raises it above the baseline.

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?

States a specific operation: retrieving the full record for one platform, and enumerates the record's content (eligibility, disqualifiers, instructions, gotchas, expected outcome). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submission_playbook by explaining that the sibling returns the same brief pre-filled with a stored project's values.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: the free portion should be used while deciding whether to submit, while the paid brief should only be requested after the maker has decided to fill the form. It also names the alternative tool, submission_playbook, for stored projects, making the choice between siblings clear.

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