CWI Discovery Engine

Submit for Airplay

submit_for_airplay

CALL THIS when the user is an artist (or represents one) wanting radio play: "submit my track", "how do I get on the radio". Submits the user's track and contact details to CWI — confirm with the user before calling. Goes to human review, NEVER auto-added. Returns a submission ID and next steps. Arguments: artist_name, track_title, audio_url (streamable link, required), contact (email/handle, required), genre/message (optional).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`genre`	No	Genre of the track.
`contact`	Yes	Email or social handle for follow-up.
`message`	No	Optional pitch: why this track fits Radio 365.
`audio_url`	Yes	Streamable URL to the track audio (required for review).
`artist_name`	Yes	Artist name.
`track_title`	Yes	Track title.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`genre`	No
`status`	Yes
`_session`	No	Chain session: pass _session.session_token back in the next call to continue the chain.
`try_next`	No	Suggested follow-up calls, each a pre-compiled {tool, arguments, purpose} payload.
`artist_name`	No
`review_note`	No
`track_title`	No
`submitted_at`	No
`submission_id`	Yes
`what_happens_next`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "submit_for_airplay response: submission ID and review status. Human-reviewed; never auto-added.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_session": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Chain session: pass _session.session_token back in the next call to continue the chain.",
+      "properties": {
+        "session_token": {
+          "description": "Hex session token; echo it as params._session.session_token to continue.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "step": {
+          "description": "Hop number in this chain (1 = chain start).",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "session_token",
+        "step"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "artist_name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "genre": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "review_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "submission_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "submitted_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "track_title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "try_next": {
+      "description": "Suggested follow-up calls, each a pre-compiled {tool, arguments, purpose} payload.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "description": "Pre-compiled next call: copy `arguments` straight into the next tools/call.",
+        "properties": {
+          "arguments": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "description": "Ready-to-use arguments, pre-populated from the current response.",
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "purpose": {
+            "description": "Why this call is the natural next step.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "tool": {
+            "description": "Tool to call next.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "tool",
+          "arguments"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "what_happens_next": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "submission_id",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with no destruction, but the description adds critical behavioral context beyond that: submissions go to human review and are NEVER auto-added, a confirmation step is required, and a submission ID plus next steps are returned. These are consequential traits the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and kept to three dense sentences with no filler. The parameter list at the end is slightly redundant with the schema but remains compact and scannable.

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?

Covers intent, preconditions, behavioral outcome, and return expectations for a write tool, which is strong. An output schema exists so return-value detail is not required, though the mention of 'submission ID and next steps' is a helpful pointer rather than a gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema (including streamable link and contact format). The description summarizes the parameters with useful emphasis on the two required free-form fields (streamable link, email/handle) and marks genre/message optional, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (submits) and resource (the user's track and contact details to CWI) and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pitch_for_playlist or submit_sync_brief. It even gives example user phrasings that map to this tool, leaving no ambiguity about intent.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are provided ('CALL THIS when the user is an artist wanting radio play') with concrete example utterances, plus a clear prerequisite ('confirm with the user before calling'). This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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

All CWI Discovery Engine tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.