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. If the live platform did not match what the brief said, put the difference in differsFromRecord. 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
`differsFromRecord`	No	Only when the live platform did not match the brief or the platform record: say what differed, in one line, as fact. A price where the record said free, a sign-in or phone check it did not mention, a field it did not list, a submit page that moved, an audience it does not accept. We read these and fix the record, so the next maker is not sent into the same wall. Leave it out when everything matched.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / differsFromRecord

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only when the live platform did not match the brief or the platform record: say what differed, in one line, as fact. A price where the record said free, a sign-in or phone check it did not mention, a field it did not list, a submit page that moved, an audience it does not accept. We read these and fix the record, so the next maker is not sent into the same wall. Leave it out when everything matched.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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

A4.6/5.0

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 side effects (next brief blocked), cost neutrality, the honest meaning of `attempted`, and that `planned` hands the platform back without claiming an outcome. This is far richer than a generic 'records a submission'.

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 long but front-loaded with purpose and organized around call timing, statuses, and edge cases. Some repetition exists, but every sentence carries operational guidance for a nuanced tool.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to call, status selection, the required note for `planned`, mismatch handling, and downstream consequences. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces status semantics and `differsFromRecord`, but mostly applies what the schema already documents rather than adding new parameter-level syntax or format details.

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 specific verb ('Log') and resource ('what happened to the dashboard'), then names the key fields. This clearly distinguishes record_submission from siblings like list_submissions and plan_submissions.

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 call conditions: as soon as a submission lands, before the next brief, including queued or uncertain cases. It also explains when to use `planned` and `differsFromRecord`, and states that the next brief is refused until this call is made.

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