submit_linkОтправляет одну заполненную ссылку вебмастеру. Вызывать только после явного подтверждения пользователя.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link_id | Yes | ||
| confirmed | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the confirmation requirement and the singular scope ('one filled link'), but does not disclose deeper side effects, authorization needs, or what happens after submission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. The action is stated first, and the crucial precondition follows, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and precondition, but lacks parameter semantics and post-submission behavior. While an output schema exists, the description itself is not fully self-sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters. The description only hints at link_id ('one filled link') and confirmed ('explicit user confirmation'), but leaves idempotency_key completely unexplained, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action: 'Sends one filled link to the webmaster.' This identifies the verb (sends), the resource (filled link), and the recipient (webmaster), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_link_draft and list_links.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear precondition: 'Call only after explicit user confirmation.' This gives important usage context, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or mention when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but a few pairs (check_registration vs get_account_profile, submit_link vs submit_order) overlap in scope. Descriptions clarify the differences (single vs bulk, status vs full profile), so confusion is limited.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (begin_registration, list_orders, update_link_draft). The only slight deviation is 'bulk_update_order_draft' with the 'bulk' modifier, but it still fits the overall pattern.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized service covering registration, orders, links, tariffs, and checkout. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflow (register, browse tariffs, manage order drafts, submit links) is well covered. Minor gaps like lack of explicit order creation or deletion are likely handled externally or via the checkout process, so agents can still complete key tasks.