Review Times

Report a store submission

report_submission

Add the user's own submission to a store so others can see real wait times. Only call with the user's permission and for a real submission. Returns a token for updating it later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No
`note`	No	Optional public note, max 280 chars
`store`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`decided_on`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, required unless status is waiting
`submitted_on`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`token`	No	Private token for update_submission
`update_url`	No	Private page to update or delete the report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "description": "Private token for update_submission",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "update_url": {
+      "description": "Private page to update or delete the report",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide generic false flags and do not disclose safety or mutation behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: permission is required, submission must be real, and invoking the tool returns a token for future updates. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps an agent understand side effects and ethical constraints.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool does, when it is allowed, and what it returns. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields. The critical ethical instruction is front-loaded in the second sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the tool's purpose, permission requirements, authenticity constraint, and update flow. The main remaining gap is semantic explanation for the three poorly documented parameters, but the overall call context is sufficiently clear for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, with store, status, and kind lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explain these fields, their enum meanings, or how they relate to the submission. It only adds context about a token, which is not even a parameter. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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: 'Add the user's own submission to a store.' It also clarifies the purpose ('so others can see real wait times') and distinguishes this from the sibling update_submission tool by noting that a token is returned for later updates. This is more specific than the title alone.

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?

The description gives explicit conditions for use: 'Only call with the user's permission and for a real submission.' It also scopes the tool to the user's own submission, implicitly excluding submissions on behalf of others. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_submission or review_times, though the token note strongly implies the update path.

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

All Review Times 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.

Resources

Need Help?