record_submission

Log what happened to the dashboard: the listing URL, when it was sent, when it goes live. Call it as soon as a submission lands, before you ask for the next brief, including when it is only queued for review, and including when you are not sure it landed: that is what attempted is for. The next brief on this project is refused until this call is made. A platform that needs the maker (a captcha, a login, a payment, a file, an address to confirm) is recorded as planned with a note saying what you need from them: that hands it back without claiming an outcome, and frees the run to carry on. This costs nothing on any plan and no status costs more than another, so record what actually happened: the brief was what spent the tracked platform, and leaving the row wrong now only makes the run harder to follow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Required with `planned`: what you need from the maker, in one line they can act on.
`status`	Yes	Use `attempted` when the form was sent and you cannot prove it arrived: the tab died, the connection dropped, the page never came back. It is not a lesser `submitted`, it is the honest one, and it carries the verification the platform record describes so somebody can settle it later. Never re-send a form to find out; every platform has a way to check without submitting twice. Use `planned`, with a note, to hand a platform back to the maker when it is waiting on them. A first record is `submitted`, `attempted` or `planned`: `live`, `rejected` and `needs_changes` come after one of those.
`launchAt`	No	ISO 8601, if it is scheduled.
`projectId`	No	Omit it when the account has one project, which is the free tier.
`listingUrl`	No	The product's URL on that platform.
`submittedAt`	No	ISO 8601.
`platformSlug`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / note / description

Added value: +"Required with `planned`: what you need from the maker, in one line they can act on."

changedInput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Use `attempted` when the form was sent and you cannot prove it arrived: the tab died, the connection dropped, the page never came back. It is not a lesser `submitted`, it is the honest one, and it carries the verification the platform record describes so somebody can settle it later. Never re-send a form to find out; every platform has a way to check without submitting twice."New value: +"Use `attempted` when the form was sent and you cannot prove it arrived: the tab died, the connection dropped, the page never came back. It is not a lesser `submitted`, it is the honest one, and it carries the verification the platform record describes so somebody can settle it later. Never re-send a form to find out; every platform has a way to check without submitting twice. Use `planned`, with a note, to hand a platform back to the maker when it is waiting on them. A first record is `submitted`, `attempted` or `planned`: `live`, `rejected` and `needs_changes` come after one of those."

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / status / description

Added value: +"Use `attempted` when the form was sent and you cannot prove it arrived: the tab died, the connection dropped, the page never came back. It is not a lesser `submitted`, it is the honest one, and it carries the verification the platform record describes so somebody can settle it later. Never re-send a form to find out; every platform has a way to check without submitting twice."

changedInput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "planned",
-  "submitted",
-  "live",
-  "rejected",
-  "needs_changes"
-]New value: +[
+  "planned",
+  "attempted",
+  "submitted",
+  "live",
+  "rejected",
+  "needs_changes"
+]

First observedAug 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the next brief is refused until this call is made, that planned frees the run without claiming an outcome, that attempted carries verification for later settling, and that re-sending forms to test is not the right approach. This goes well beyond the structured schema and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and workflow consequences.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is information-dense but lengthy and somewhat conversational, with several clauses stacked into long sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, but the behavioral guidance could be tightened without losing meaning. It earns its place overall, but is not a model of conciseness.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to call, what statuses mean, how to handle uncertain submissions, how to handle platform-side requirements, cost implications, and workflow blocking. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly in the full range of intended situations.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance on top: it explains the exact meaning of attempted as distinct from submitted, requires note for planned, and clarifies when launchAt/submittedAt are relevant. It does not add anything about platformSlug, but the schema gap is minor and mostly inferable.

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 description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Log what happened to the dashboard: the listing URL, when it was sent, when it goes live.' It clearly identifies this as a recording/logging tool for submissions. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like plan_submissions or submission_playbook, though the purpose is inferable from context.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call it as soon as a submission lands, before asking for the next brief, including queued-review and uncertain-landing cases. It also specifies the planned status usage for platforms waiting on the maker and explains that record status costs nothing on any plan. This is strong, actionable routing information.

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

All directory 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.

record_submission

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources