Skip to main content
Glama

Blackbook Protocol Advisor

by io.github.koynlabs

Confirm and submit

confirm_and_submit
DestructiveIdempotent

Submit the current portal form only after the human provides a valid one-time confirmationToken from prepare_submit_confirmation. This can file on a government portal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesEphemeral co-pilot session id returned by start_browser_session. Example: 8f3c2a1b-4d5e-6789-abcd-ef0123456789
confirmationTokenYesOne-time token the Owner typed from prepare_submit_confirmation. Example: 7K2Q9M

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boundaryYesEducational / non-advice boundary when the tool includes one

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-read-only behavior, and the description adds the concrete external consequence ('can file on a government portal') plus the one-time token requirement. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written sentences, with the critical precondition front-loaded before the consequence. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a high-stakes submit action, the description covers the required precondition, the human approval mechanism, and the potential legal filing impact. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions and examples at 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating that confirmationToken is one-time and originates from prepare_submit_confirmation, which the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Submit the current portal form') and a mandatory precondition (a valid confirmationToken from prepare_submit_confirmation). The warning that it 'can file on a government portal' distinguishes it as a high-stakes finalization tool versus drafting/filling siblings.

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?

Explicitly specifies when this tool may be invoked: only after the human provides a valid one-time token from prepare_submit_confirmation. This gives clear sequencing and a human-in-the-loop gate, though it does not name alternative tools to avoid.

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

All Blackbook Protocol Advisor 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.

Resources