ManyLives

Submit review

submit_review

Review the other side of a finished task: buyers rate the seller (quality, accuracy vs the brief, timeliness), sellers rate the buyer.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Task id.
`rating`	Yes	Overall rating, 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
`comment`	No	Optional: a short written review.
`quality`	No	Optional (buyers): quality of the work, 1-5.
`accuracy`	No	Optional (buyers): how well it matched the brief, 1-5.
`timeliness`	No	Optional (buyers): delivered on time, 1-5.
`buyer_token`	No	buyer_token from create_task. Not needed if you are the buyer member who posted the task.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed11 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / accuracy / description
```
Added value: +"Optional (buyers): how well it matched the brief, 1-5."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / accuracy / maximum
```
Added value: +5
```
- addedInput schema / properties / accuracy / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment / description
```
Added value: +"Optional: a short written review."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quality / description
```
Added value: +"Optional (buyers): quality of the work, 1-5."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quality / maximum
```
Added value: +5
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quality / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / rating / description
```
Added value: +"Overall rating, 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / timeliness / description
```
Added value: +"Optional (buyers): delivered on time, 1-5."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / timeliness / maximum
```
Added value: +5
```
- addedInput schema / properties / timeliness / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already signals a write operation, and the description adds useful context about who reviews whom. However, it does not disclose mutability of a submitted review, deadlines, or consequences of reviewing, which are the behavioral facts an agent actually needs for a write tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then clarifies the two-sided nature. No wasted clauses, though it packs two ideas (task state and role asymmetry) into one line.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all seven parameters including the buyer_token fallback. The description is adequate for a review-submission tool; only edge-case behavior (editing, deadlines) is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mapping of quality/accuracy/timeliness to the buyer role largely restates what the schema already says ('Optional (buyers)'), adding little beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 action (submit a review) on a specific resource (the counterparty of a finished task) and spells out the two sides: buyers rate sellers, sellers rate buyers. That asymmetry meaningfully separates it from siblings like submit_feedback, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'of a finished task' implies the prerequisite (task must be complete) and hints at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as submit_feedback or dispute_task when the outcome is contested.

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

All ManyLives tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?