Skip to main content
Glama

directory

by com.submitmap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

submission_playbook

Everything needed to submit a stored project to one platform, yourself, in the maker's browser: a preflight of what is still missing, the sign-in plan (on the first submission it carries a question for the maker: hand every login back to them, or use the Google address they write out, which you then pass back as signInAs), the pack values mapped onto the fields the form asks for, the steps, the gotchas, the agentGotchas (traps in the form itself), and the call to make afterwards. Read the preflight before opening a tab. One brief is out at a time per project: ask for the next platform only after record_submission has answered this one, because until then this tool refuses the next brief and names the one still open. Do not fetch briefs ahead or in parallel. This is the tool the free plan meters: it covers the same submissions the dashboard tracks, plus any platform the account has already sent to, and past that it says so and points at the upgrade rather than answering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signInAsNoThe Google address the maker wrote out when they agreed you could sign in, or sign up, for them on this project, whether they said it when asked or before you started. Pass it on every call after they say it, so the answer travels with the work instead of living in your head. It belongs to one project: on a different one, ask again rather than sending the address you were given for the last. Leave it out if they have not written one: sign-in then goes back to them, which is the safe end.
projectIdNoOmit it when the account has one project, which is the free tier.
platformSlugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / signInAs / description
      Previous value: -"The Google address the maker wrote out when they agreed you could sign in for them on this project. Pass it on every call after they say it, so the answer travels with the work instead of living in your head. It belongs to one project: on a different one, ask again rather than sending the address you were given for the last. Leave it out if they have not written one: sign-in then goes back to them, which is the safe end."New value: +"The Google address the maker wrote out when they agreed you could sign in, or sign up, for them on this project, whether they said it when asked or before you started. Pass it on every call after they say it, so the answer travels with the work instead of living in your head. It belongs to one project: on a different one, ask again rather than sending the address you were given for the last. Leave it out if they have not written one: sign-in then goes back to them, which is the safe end."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / signInAs
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The Google address the maker wrote out when they agreed you could sign in for them on this project. Pass it on every call after they say it, so the answer travels with the work instead of living in your head. It belongs to one project: on a different one, ask again rather than sending the address you were given for the last. Leave it out if they have not written one: sign-in then goes back to them, which is the safe end.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the one-brief-per-project refusal behavior, the free-plan metering with upgrade redirection, the sign-in decision path, and the presence of gotchas/agentGotchas, all of which are non-obvious behavioral traits affecting invocation.

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 text is a single dense paragraph packed with caveats and embedded clauses, making it harder to scan. Every sentence does convey a distinct operational fact and the purpose is front-loaded, but restructuring into bullets or shorter sentences would improve clarity significantly.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns, when it refuses, how metering works, and how sign-in is handled. The only minor gap is enumerating exact platform slugs, but the description points to account/platform context and related sibling tools, which is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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?

Two of three parameters already have detailed schema descriptions, so the description adds marginal value for signInAs and projectId. The missing piece is platformSlug: the schema gives only a type, and the description never explains what platform slugs are valid or where to obtain them, leaving the one required parameter under-specified.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the complete submission brief for a stored project on one platform and distinguishes it from record_submission, which is the follow-up call. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'return,' presenting the tool as a noun phrase ('Everything needed to submit...') rather than stating the core action directly.

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?

It gives strong operational context: read the preflight before opening a tab, fetch one brief at a time, never fetch ahead or in parallel, and wait for record_submission before requesting the next platform. It does not, however, compare this tool against sibling planning tools like plan_submissions, so some alternative routing is left implicit.

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
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.

Resources