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. The private link to update the report later is emailed to the address given, never returned in the conversation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No
`note`	No	Optional public note, max 280 chars
`email`	No	Optional. The reporter’s email address; the private update link is sent there. Not stored.
`store`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`decided_on`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, required unless status is waiting
`listing_ref`	No	Optional, private. Directory link, ChatGPT app id, MCP server URL or repository; the report is marked approved when that listing appears.
`submitted_on`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`emailed`	No	Whether the private update link was emailed
`share_url`	No	Public page for this report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The reporter’s email address; the private update link is sent there. Not stored.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / listing_ref

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional, private. Directory link, ChatGPT app id, MCP server URL or repository; the report is marked approved when that listing appears.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / emailed

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Whether the private update link was emailed",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / share_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page for this report",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / token

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Private token for update_submission",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / update_url

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Private page to update or delete the report",
-  "type": "string"
-}

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: consent is required, and the private update link is emailed rather than returned in the conversation, which is a non-obvious side effect an agent must know.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the constraints. No filler, though the email/link sentence partially duplicates what the schema already says.

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?

For a non-idempotent write with an output schema present, the description covers the essential extras: consent requirement and the fact that the update link is delivered by email, not in the response. It leaves some parameter semantics to the schema, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 63% across 8 parameters, so several fields (store, submitted_on, status, kind, decided_on, listing_ref) are only minimally documented. The description reinforces the email/link behavior that is already in the schema, adding little new per-parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add the user's own submission to a store') plus the downstream benefit ('so others can see real wait times'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling review_times, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives preconditions ('Only call with the user's permission and for a real submission'), which is genuine when-to-call guidance, but it never names or contrasts the sibling tool review_times, leaving the alternative-choice decision to inference.

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

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?