submit_productSubmit a website to VibeHacker. Reads the site, drafts the listing, and files it for review. Requires a token. If the website was already submitted, returns the existing listing instead of creating a duplicate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The product's website, e.g. https://example.com | |
| note | No | Optional note for the reviewer (not published). | |
| maker | No | Set true if you built this product. Default true. |
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?
Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds meaningful context by explaining the pipeline (reads site, drafts listing, files for review), the token requirement, and the dedupe behavior. It aligns with the idempotentHint and adds no contradictions, giving agents a realistic picture of side effects.
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 three sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and then providing distinct pieces of value: the process, the auth requirement, and duplicate handling. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
It covers the process, auth, and duplicate behavior, but it does not specify what a successful first-time submission returns—only the duplicate case returns an existing listing. With no output schema present, this is a noticeable gap, and it also doesn't indicate how the required token is supplied.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema already documents url, note, and maker thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond saying 'website' and 'token', but nothing more is needed because the schema carries that weight.
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 states a specific action—'Submit a website to VibeHacker'—and gives the concrete process: reads the site, drafts the listing, and files it for review. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_product or preview_product, and the duplicate-handling clause further defines its scope.
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?
The intended usage is implied: use this when you want to submit a new website, and it even reassures agents that handling an already-submitted site is safe. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when to prefer get_product, preview_product, or upvote_product instead, leaving routing mostly to inference.
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.
Most tools target distinct actions or resources, but preview_product and submit_product overlap since submit_product also drafts the listing before filing it. The descriptions are enough to tell them apart, though an agent could briefly confuse them.
Tool names mostly follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_product, list_categories, search_products, submit_product, upvote_product. The main deviation is my_submissions, which uses a possessive noun phrase instead of an action verb.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for a product submission and voting directory. Each tool serves a meaningful part of the workflow without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The core workflow is covered: browsing categories, searching products, viewing a product, previewing and submitting listings, checking submission status, and upvoting. Minor gaps exist such as no update or delete for submissions, but these do not severely block the primary use case.