Skip to main content
Glama

Sellular

by online.sellular
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

generate_submission_kit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build ready-to-paste directory submission copy for one of the connected account's products: name, tagline, length-appropriate descriptions, category and pricing mapped to each directory's own field names and char limits, plus per-directory prep requirements (screenshots, video), resolved assets with provenance, blockers (e.g. missing logo) and recorded done/pending/remaining progress. fields/copyText contain ONLY pasteable values; prep instructions live in requirements. Read-only formatter: it does NOT submit anything anywhere. Account-scoped: requires the MCP_API_KEY bearer token. Use when preparing directory submissions without opening the dashboard.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax directories to return, sorted by domain authority.
productNoProduct id, name or domain to look up (substring match). Optional when the account has one product.
automationNoFilter by how the form can be driven, measured by loading it in a real browser: 'open' fills with no account, 'login' needs the owner signed in first, 'walled' serves a bot challenge and cannot be automated at all. Pass 'open' to get only the directories an agent can fill right now. Every entry also carries `automation` and a `howToFill` instruction, so the walled ones can be handed to the Sellular Chrome extension instead of being retried.
signed_outNoDirectory names the session sweep found signed out, dropped from the result and echoed back in `skippedSignedOut`. Probe first with `browserControl.sessionProbe`, then pass what failed: the kit returns only what can be worked on now, so a run proceeds on the valid sessions instead of stalling on the locked ones.
directory_nameNoFilter to one directory by name (substring match), e.g. 'Product Hunt'.
remaining_onlyNoReturn only directories with no recorded submission yet, i.e. the outstanding to-do list. Applied before `limit`, so `limit: 1` with this set yields the single highest-DA directory still to do. Use it to walk submissions one at a time without re-reading the ones already done.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral context: account scoping via MCP_API_KEY bearer token, the fields/copyText vs requirements split, blocker reporting and recorded progress. It doesn't discuss error modes or the ambiguity case when multiple products match, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then capabilities, then the read-only and auth caveats. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the mid-sentence run-on listing of output elements could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape (fields/copyText, requirements, assets with provenance, blockers, progress) and the auth requirement. Minor gaps remain around behavior when no product matches or when multiple products match. Overall sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already explains limit, product, automation, signed_out, directory_name and remaining_only in detail. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and artifact ('Build ready-to-paste directory submission copy') and enumerates what the kit contains (name, tagline, descriptions, category/pricing mapping, requirements, blockers, progress). The explicit 'Read-only formatter: it does NOT submit anything anywhere' cleanly separates it from write-side siblings like record_submission.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use when preparing directory submissions without opening the dashboard,' reinforced by the read-only framing that implies record_submission handles the actual submission. It doesn't name an alternative sibling explicitly or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Sellular toolsInspect
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.

Resources