birdfury

Review submissions

review_submission

Destructive

Review work on a mission you posted: approve one winner, reject one submission, finalize a multi-winner split, record a payout tx (settle), rotate the manage key, close an open mission early with no winner (refused while any submission is pending), or extend an open mission's deadline by days (1, 3, 7, 14 or 30; at most 30 days from now). Requires the mission's bf_post_ manage key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "manageKey": "<manageKey>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "review_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The mission's public numeric id.
`days`	No	extend only: days to add (1, 3, 7, 14 or 30).
`action`	Yes
`manageKey`	Yes	Sensitive bf_post_ mission manage key — shown once at post time.
`allocations`	No
`settleBlock`	No
`settleTxHash`	No
`submissionId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "approve",
-  "reject",
-  "finalize",
-  "settle",
-  "rotate_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "approve",
+  "reject",
+  "finalize",
+  "settle",
+  "rotate_key",
+  "close",
+  "extend"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / days

Added value: +{
+  "description": "extend only: days to add (1, 3, 7, 14 or 30).",
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 64,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

AddedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already say destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: close is refused while any submission is pending, extend is capped at 30 days from now with an allowed value set, and the bf_post_ manage key is required. It does not spell out irreversibility of approve/reject or what settle actually pays out.

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?

One dense sentence, but front-loaded with the purpose before the action list, and every clause carries a real constraint (pending-submission refusal, day values, key requirement). Slight cost is readability from chaining seven operations into a single 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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action space, guardrails, and auth requirement well. Missing is any indication of what approve/finalize/settle produce or how allocations must sum, which an agent will need to act 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?

Coverage is only 38%, and the description compensates well for action and days (allowed values 1/3/7/14/30, 30-day ceiling) and for manageKey. But allocations, settleBlock, settleTxHash, and submissionId are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the multi-winner split and settle payloads semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Review work on a mission you posted') and then enumerates the exact seven operations (approve, reject, finalize, settle, rotate_key, close, extend) that the action enum encodes. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_submissions or get_mission.

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?

Scopes usage to 'a mission you posted' and states the manage-key prerequisite, which is the key routing condition versus post_mission, submit_work, or withdraw_submission. It gives no explicit 'do not use this for X' statement, but ownership plus key requirement is a clear enough gate.

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

All birdfury 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?