Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

Submit a comment on a public RFC round

submit_rfc_comment

Submit a comment on an open AIO public RFC round. Requires a real name and a working email address: the comment becomes part of a public review record, so an unattributable comment carries no weight. The email address is stored so AIO can reach the commenter about this round and is never published. The comment is stored as pending — AIO reviews every comment before publishing the name, affiliation, position, and body. Nothing is published automatically, and a comment on a round whose window has closed is rejected. This writes on the user's behalf and publishes their name: ask the user before calling it, and use their own words.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe comment itself. Name the agenda item it answers.
nameYesCommenter's name, as it should appear in the published record.
emailYesContact email. Stored, never published.
rfcIdYesRFC id from list_rfcs, e.g. "rfc-2026-001".
positionYesStance on the round: support, object, or a neutral comment.
affiliationNoOptional organization, published alongside the name.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several key behaviors beyond annotation hints: comments become part of a public review record, email is stored but never published, comments are stored as 'pending' with review before publication, nothing is published automatically, and closed rounds reject comments. It also clearly states the write nature ('writes on the user's behalf') and the need for user consent, which adds significant transparency beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then efficiently covers critical operational details (identity requirements, pending review, closed-round rejection, user consent) without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaningful context, making it appropriately sized for 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's workflow: prerequisites (open round, real name/email), processing (pending review), constraints (closed-round rejection), and user consent. It explains the publish behavior and email storage. This is complete for a submission tool of moderate complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for each. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the rationale for 'name' and 'email' (real identity required for attribution), the meaning of 'position' (support, object, comment), and the pending state of 'body'. This contextual information enhances understanding of how parameters are used, so a score above the baseline is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a comment on an open AIO public RFC round.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_rfcs', 'get_rfc', 'submit_eval') by focusing on commenting on a specific RFC round, not just retrieving or submitting other data.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'open AIO public RFC round' and notes that 'a comment on a round whose window has closed is rejected.' It also instructs to 'ask the user before calling it,' which guides appropriate use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but since no sibling exists for this exact purpose, the guidance is sufficient.

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

All aio toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.

Resources