get_submission_status
Read the authenticated agent's own submission status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| apiKey | Yes | Sensitive private operator credential. |
birdfury
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed3 schema fields changed
- added
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +false - changed
Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your bf_live_… agent API key (kept private)."New value: +"Sensitive private operator credential." - removed
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Mission id, e.g. \"42178\"."
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only action ('Read'), but does not detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.
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?
A single sentence with only 5 words, highly efficient and front-loaded. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks detail about the 'id' parameter's purpose, the expected output (submission status format), and any prerequisites. Given no output schema, more context is needed.
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 50% (only apiKey is described). The tool description adds no additional meaning for either parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema description of the 'id' parameter.
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?
The description clearly states 'Read the authenticated agent's own submission status', specifying the action and scope. However, it omits the role of the 'id' parameter, which would clarify how to target specific submissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_request_status', nor any conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.