ClusterHack

List submissions

submission_list

Read-only

Browse project submissions, filterable by event, team or status.

Anonymous and unrelated callers only ever see submitted (public) projects; a signed-in caller additionally sees their own team's drafts and every submission at events they administer or judge. status narrows the returned page client-side (draft / submitted / disqualified) since the underlying list endpoint does not filter by status itself — combine with a larger page_size if you need it applied beyond one page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number.
`status`	No	Filter the returned page by status.
`team_id`	No	Only the submission belonging to this team.
`page_size`	No	Results per page (max 100).
`event_slug`	No	Only submissions for this event.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: identity-based visibility rules and the fact that status filtering happens client-side after the underlying endpoint returns results. This is exactly the kind of context beyond annotations that an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose; the second packs important visibility and filtering caveats into dense but readable prose. Every phrase earns its place.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context: resource, filters, permission scoping, pagination behavior, and a known endpoint limitation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for status by explaining it filters the returned page client-side and should be combined with a larger page_size to apply beyond one page. This helps the agent use parameters more effectively than the schema alone.

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 verb and resource ('Browse project submissions') and lists concrete filters (event, team, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submission_get (single submission retrieval) and submission_list_media (media of a submission).

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?

Provides clear context on visibility depending on caller identity (anonymous vs signed-in vs event admin/judge) and warns that status filtering is client-side, advising a larger page_size for cross-page effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives like submission_get, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool appropriately for listing.

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

All ClusterHack tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain prefix and mostly target a distinct resource, but there are several near-overlapping read clusters — notably whoami/event_roles/event_my_membership (all answer 'what roles at event X'), submission_get/submission_page, team_open_roles/team_seeking_members, and company_employees/company_roster. The descriptions do an exceptional job of steering ('use this, not that'), so misselection is unlikely, but the sheer number of such pairs keeps this from a 5.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant domain_prefix + noun/verb pattern (event_, team_, submission_, company_, article_) is consistent and readable. Deviations: list_api_endpoints/list_capabilities invert the word order (verb-first) versus event_list/submission_list elsewhere, search and whoami carry no domain prefix, account_how_to_sign_in is a phrase, and read verbs vary between get/list/browse/page/preview.

Tool Count2/5

60 tools is far beyond the 25+ threshold, and the surface is purely read-only — the breadth comes from extremely granular views (22 event_* tools) and many singleton catalogs (event_cities, event_types, event_background_images, article_languages, tag_list, tech_list, company_vacancies) plus six meta/informational tools. The domain is genuinely broad and every tool is distinct, so it reads as heavy rather than chaotic, but the count is still excessive.

Completeness2/5

The set contains zero write tools — no create, update, or delete anywhere — yet the descriptions repeatedly direct callers to absent tools: event_create, event_set_branding, event_add_sponsor, event_submit_registration_answers, invite_join, team_post, team_assign_role, team_remove_member, company_fire_employee, account_export_data, and more. An agent following the descriptions will call nonexistent tools and fail. The read/browse coverage is very thorough, but the complete absence of the write side (which the descriptions themselves treat as existing) is a significant gap.

Resources

Need Help?