Whisper

submit

whisper_submit

Submit an observation/claim into the graph. Writes to the graph, so it needs your API key: an anonymous claim would not be attributable. Example call: {"skill":"submit","input":{"host":"example.com","claim":"benign"}} Needs a linked Whisper account (OAuth) or your API key in the X-API-Key header.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "whisper_submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Arguments for this operation, as an object. The example passes {"host":"example.com","claim":"benign"}.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes	The answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
`columns`	Yes	The column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
`statistics`	No	What the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description's real contribution is the auth requirement (linked Whisper account via OAuth, or X-API-Key header) and the rationale that anonymous claims are not attributable. That is useful context beyond the annotations, but dedupe behavior, error modes and whether a repeat submission overwrites an existing claim are all unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The write-and-auth rationale is front-loaded, which is good, but the API-key requirement is stated twice in slightly different words ('it needs your API key' and 'your API key in the X-API-Key header'), and the example is duplicated from the schema. Trimming one sentence would tighten it without losing information.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the definition covers authentication, attribution rationale and a worked request example, so an agent can construct a valid call. Gaps remain around idempotency, what a claim attaches to, and failure behavior, which matter for a graph write.

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?

The schema only defines a generic 'input' object without enumerating its properties, so the example call is the only place that reveals the expected keys ('host', 'claim') and their value types. The description repeats the example already present in the schema's input description, which caps the added value below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit an observation/claim into the graph') and makes clear this is the write path in a family of mostly read-oriented siblings (lookup, rdap, verify, assess). It never names a sibling it should be preferred over or avoided in favor of, so differentiation is implied by the word 'Submit' rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit condition for when to submit versus use whisper_assess, whisper_verify or whisper_watch, and no guidance on when not to submit (e.g. duplicates, unverified claims). The example implies the request shape but says nothing about the decision to call this tool.

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

All Whisper 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.