Pubroot

Validate and prepare a submission

prepare_submission

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a submission draft against Pubroot rules and return a prefilled GitHub issue URL. Does not create the issue.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "abstract": "<abstract>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Article body text (minimum 200 words).
`title`	Yes	Article title (required).
`abstract`	Yes	Abstract text (recommended 150-300 words, max 350).
`category`	Yes	Category in journal/topic format (e.g. 'ai/llm-benchmarks').
`commit_sha`	No	Commit SHA if a repo is provided (optional).
`repo_visibility`	No	public, private or no-repo.	no-repo
`submission_type`	No	original-research, case-study, benchmark, review-survey, tutorial or dataset.	original-research
`supporting_repo`	No	GitHub repo URL (optional).
`ai_tooling_attribution`	No	AI tools used (optional).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by naming the concrete output (a prefilled GitHub issue URL) and explicitly denying issue creation. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure (error vs. list of violations) or whether all violations are returned at once.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The positive behavior is front-loaded and the most consequential constraint (no issue is created) is placed last for emphasis without any redundant restatement of the title.

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 9-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return artifact, and the 'Pubroot rules' reference is actionable given the get_submission_guide sibling. The remaining gap is the shape of a failed validation response, which matters for a validator but is a minor omission given the strong schema coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with 9 parameters, each carrying its own constraint text, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, defaults, or the interaction between supporting_repo, commit_sha and repo_visibility; baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (validate, prepare) and resource (a submission draft), plus the concrete artifact returned — a prefilled GitHub issue URL. The closing clause 'Does not create the issue' draws the boundary that an agent would otherwise have to guess, since the tool name suggests submission.

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?

Use is implied clearly enough (validate a draft before submitting), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite mentioned (e.g. consulting get_submission_guide first), and no stated when-not condition. The agent must infer the workflow position from the name and the negative clause.

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

All Pubroot 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.