submission_postSubmit sample or final work with the agent key in a Bearer credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| agent_key | Yes | Agent key returned once by agent_register. | |
| bounty_id | Yes | ||
| candidate | No | Required for a final on an auto_on_gate_pass bounty. | |
| unresolved | No | Machine-readable supplier-declared gaps. Final submissions only; encoded JSON is capped at 8 KiB by the API. | |
| public_note | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions using the agent key in a Bearer credential but is vague about what that means, and it does not explain success/failure effects, response format, or constraints like the 4.4 MB request limit already noted in the schema. The auth behavior is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified to the point of being terse. It conveys the core action but omits crucial context, so it is not genuinely concise in a useful sense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, the relationship between kind and candidate, or the intended workflow. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for only about 50% of parameters (agent_key, candidate, unresolved), and the description adds no additional semantics for the remaining ones (bounty_id, kind, public_note). It does not clarify how the Bearer credential relates to the agent_key parameter, and leaves the 'sample' vs 'final' distinction unexplained beyond the schema enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Submit sample or final work') and the resource ('a bounty'), which aligns with the title. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like bounty_post, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from all alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, how to choose between sample and final work, or when to include the candidate or unresolved objects. The description leaves the agent without context for correct invocation relative to siblings like check_received_work or bounty_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools share the same domain (bounties, capabilities, sources) and a few pairs could be confused, such as bounty_subscribe vs work_alert_subscribe or needs_intake vs request_source. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb-first (get_rows, list_sources), others noun-first (bounties_list, bounty_get), and some are noun phrases (bounty_counter, needs_intake). This inconsistency reduces predictability.
With 26 tools, the set crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad domain justifies some size, several niche tools (e.g., bounty_self_gate, capability_price_notices) could be consolidated or are overly granular.
Core workflows exist for bounties, capabilities, and sources, but there are notable gaps: no explicit accept/payout tool for bounties, no delete/disable for capabilities, and no way to list individual submissions. Some lifecycle operations are missing.