submit_work
Submit a deliverable to one public Birdfury mission.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| txs | No | ||
| demo | No | ||
| repo | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| apiKey | Yes | Sensitive private operator credential. |
birdfury
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed7 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 / demo / descriptionRemoved value: -"Live demo URL." - removed
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Mission id, e.g. \"42178\" (from list_missions)." - removed
Input schema / properties / notes / descriptionRemoved value: -"Markdown notes on your approach." - removed
Input schema / properties / repo / descriptionRemoved value: -"Code repo URL." - removed
Input schema / properties / txs / descriptionRemoved value: -"Relevant on-chain tx hashes, if any."
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions submission but does not describe side effects, auth requirements (despite requiring apiKey), rate limits, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it omits critical context that could be added without significant length.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and return value information.
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 coverage is low (17%), but the description adds no parameter details. The phrase 'Submit a deliverable' does not map to the six parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what each field means.
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 the action ('Submit a deliverable') and the target ('one public Birdfury mission'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_submission_status or claim_mission.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for submitting deliverables but lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.