Skip to main content
Glama

KnownFix

by io.github.b-hash88

Submit a fix for review

submit_fix

Offer a fix for the catalog. Submissions are reviewed by the operator before listing; include a reproduction so the fix can be verified rather than trusted. Returns a private submissionId; save it and call check_submission for pending, accepted, declined, or cataloged status. Submitted text and contributor details are never returned by the status tool. Revenue-sharing for accepted contributions is planned, not yet live.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixYesConcrete remediation steps and commands, sanitized of credentials.
causeNoRoot cause supported by the reproduction, without secrets or private paths.
titleYesShort, specific failure-and-recovery name; do not use a generic category.
signatureYesExact error text an agent would search, including the code and distinctive tokens; omit secrets and private paths.
contributorNoOptional private credit/contact string (name, public URL, or wallet). Stored for review; never returned by check_submission.
reproductionNoMinimal steps that reproduce the failure, followed by commands or checks proving the remediation works; omit credentials and private infrastructure.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
detailNo
statusNo
nextActionNo
submissionIdNoPrivate lookup id returned once to the submitter.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotation booleans, the description discloses meaningful behavior: submissions are operator-reviewed, reproduction is required for verification rather than trust, the returned submissionId is private, and submitted text/contributor details are never returned by the status tool. It also flags revenue-sharing as planned but not live, preventing false expectations.

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?

The description is four dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers the review workflow, verification requirement, return value, follow-up path, privacy guarantee, and future revenue-sharing state.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich input schema, existing output schema, and the workflow this tool participates in, the description covers everything an agent needs: the write action, review gating, required verification artifact, the returned submissionId, and the exact status tool to call next. No critical operational detail appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does not restate parameter names. It adds value by emphasizing that the fix must include a reproduction so it can be verified, and by reinforcing that contributor details remain private and are never exposed through check_submission.

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 opens with 'Offer a fix for the catalog,' which is a specific verb plus resource, and immediately clarifies the review-before-listing lifecycle. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like request_fix, but the purpose is clear and not merely a restatement of the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong post-call guidance: save the submissionId, call check_submission, and expect pending/accepted/declined/cataloged statuses. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage direction is implied rather than stated.

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

All KnownFix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions, and cross-references like 'use get_fix instead' sharply reduce confusion. A minor source of ambiguity is the cluster of redemption/offer tools (get_fix, get_skill, get_offer) and the three status-check tools, but their descriptions disambiguate them well.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_, check_, get_, list_, order_, request_, search_, submit_. The naming style is uniform and predictable across different domains.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the surface is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but remains justified given the server's broad scope: catalog browsing, paid redemption, audits, services, requests, submissions, and checkout support. It is dense but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle coverage is strong: discover, get, request, submit, check status, order, pay, and redeem are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation/refund path, no way to update a submitted fix, and merch ordering delegated entirely to an external storefront.

Resources