Skip to main content
Glama

Read a project's page and its judge feedback

submission_page
Read-only

Read a project's public page: the submission itself, every judge's written feedback (signed with the judge's name only where that judge consented to being named, empty otherwise), and — once the organiser has published the winners — its placement, rank and judge score.

This is the tool for "what did the judges say about our project?". submission_get returns the project's own fields and nothing about how it was received; judging_scores_for_submission is scoped to judges and event admins, so a team cannot read its own verdict through it. A submitted project's page is public; a draft is visible only to its team and the event's admins. Before the ceremony the placement is shown to the team and the hosts alone, flagged placement_private so a client says "not announced yet" instead of leaking it. private_note is the organisers' line and is absent — not blanked, absent — from everyone else's payload.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
submission_idYesId of the submission.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior; the description adds critical context: judge names appear only with consent, placement is private before ceremony with a placement_private flag, and private_note is absent rather than blanked. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 longer than average but each sentence contributes essential routing or behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds access and privacy nuances in a logical order.

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 carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so thoroughly: feedback, name consent behavior, placement/rank/score, private placement flag, and omission of private_note. It is complete for an agent to call correctly.

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?

The single parameter submission_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description confirms the tool operates on a project but adds no new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read a project's public page including the submission, judge feedback, and placement info. It explicitly distinguishes itself from submission_get and judging_scores_for_submission, so an agent can select it correctly among similar tools.

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 an explicit use case ('what did the judges say about our project?') and contrasts alternatives: submission_get returns only project fields, judging_scores_for_submission is scoped away from teams. It also clarifies public vs draft visibility, which is essential for deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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

Try in Browser

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