Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

提交报名

submit_signup
Idempotent

【需要登录】【何时用】用户说「帮我报这场」时调它。只传这次要新填/要改的答案即可:handler 自己会先读一遍我在这场活动的全部现值(上一版提交 + 跨表单复用的资料覆盖层 + 主页/公司/产品推导),打上你的补丁后提交全集

【组合链】get_signup_activity(slug) 看 viewer.missingRequired → 照 label/hint/options 问用户 → 本工具 answers=[{key,value}] 提交 → 返回的 submission.reviewStatus 之后用 list_my_signups 跟进。撞「已截止」时返回体自带还能报的替代场次(照 exits[].detail.alternatives 里的 slug 再走一遍 get_signup_activity)。

【口径/坑】① 省略 ≠ 清空:这是 agent 通道相对客户端的刻意差异——客户端有确认页(用户亲眼看着自己清掉了微信号),agent 没有,所以这里不继承服务层「传了 answers 就以 answers 为全集、没传的一律置空」那条语义。要真的清空某题,把 key 放进 clearKeys(它会连跨表单复用层里那一行一起删掉——否则下次报别的表又会被解析回来;文件行不删)。② type=file 的附件题(BP/营业执照)agent 传不了,会被整键省略以保住用户此前传过的文件——绝不许把文件名或一个链接当答案填进去。③ 合并后仍缺必填项时不会提交,直接返回 error=missing_required_fields + 逐条「要问用户什么」,把这些问完再调一次。④ 返回 delivery.kind='webview' 时报名还没投到主办方源站,站内只存了留资和代填答案——此时逐字禁止对用户说「已报名成功」,必须说「站内已留档,还要在主办方表单上完成提交」,并把 delivery.url 给他。⑤ 重新提交会以合并后的全集覆盖上一版。证件号这类敏感题的明文是加密存的、读不回来:上一版填过而这次没给值时会直接拒绝提交(sensitive_answer_would_be_wiped),因为提交上去就会把它覆盖成空且不可恢复——按返回里的 exits 让用户重说一遍,或者明确不要了就放进 clearKeys。⑥ channel 恒为 'agent',主办方在报名单里看得见这笔是 agent 代提的。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes活动 slug
answersNo这次要新填/要改的答案。没传的题**不会被清空**(自动沿用现值)
clearKeysNo要显式清空的题目 key(用户明说「把微信号删掉」才用;不传就一个都不清)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses the merge/read-current semantics, 'omission ≠ clear', clearKeys deleting the cross-form reuse row, sensitive answers being unreadable, webview meaning not yet submitted to the source site, and the fixed channel='agent'. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false is apparent; destructive clearing is explicitly limited to clearKeys.

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 long but tightly structured into labeled sections and numbered pitfalls, with the trigger front-loaded. Every sentence carries a distinct operational constraint, so the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-behavior burden and does so thoroughly: error=missing_required_fields, sensitive_answer_would_be_wiped, delivery.kind='webview' plus required user-facing wording, delivery.url, submission.reviewStatus, and exits[].detail.alternatives are all covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning: answers are a delta patch rather than the full set, clearKeys is the only way to clear and also deletes the reuse-layer row, and sensitive fields behave specially. This is exactly the semantic context an agent needs to construct correct arguments.

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?

The description states a specific trigger ('用户说「帮我报这场」时调它'), the action (submit the merged full answer set for an activity), and places it in a chain with get_signup_activity and list_my_signups. This clearly distinguishes it from the many signup-related siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-call condition, a recommended sequence (get_signup_activity → ask user → submit → follow up via list_my_signups), and explicit exclusions: file-type answers cannot be submitted, missing required fields must not be submitted, and webview delivery must not be reported as success.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.

Resources