Skip to main content
Glama

Sellular

generate_submission_kit

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

TableJSON 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and has no side effects, requires the MCP_API_KEY bearer token, and clarifies the output contract (`fields`/`copyText` are pasteable; `requirements` holds prep instructions). This is substantial non-obvious context.

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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence contributes critical operational information: output contents, field separation, read-only guarantee, auth requirement, and intended use case. It is dense yet free of filler, warranting above-average structure score.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the output contract: pasteable fields, prep instructions, blockers, and progress. Combined with fully described schema parameters and a clear side-effect profile, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without dashboard context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across all six parameters, including rich explanations for `automation`, `signed_out`, and `remaining_only`. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall product scope, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build ready-to-paste directory submission copy' for a product, then enumerates the concrete contents. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from submission tools by stating 'it does NOT submit anything anywhere,' which sets it apart from sibling 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?

It gives an explicit call-to-use: 'Use when preparing directory submissions without opening the dashboard.' The read-only statement implies not for actually submitting, but it does not name an alternative sibling or state a when-not-to-use condition. This is clear context without being a fully explicit routing statement.

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.

Resources