getfund

Approve submission

getfund_approve_submission

Destructive

Approves the review a hosted run waits for (waiting_founder with reason review), which sends the application to the program: getfund's browser ticks the form's declarations and submits it, and a submission cannot be taken back. The approval stands for the founder's explicit yes to this review, given after its fields and every declaration, word for word, were read back to them in the chat or in their own workspace. reviewSeq is the review's seq and consents the id of every declaration it lists, as the submission status gives them: one left out answers hosted_consent_missing, an id the review does not list validation_failed, a review the form has moved on from conflict. The plan and the billing period's hosted submissions are checked again (payment_required, hosted_quota_exhausted). Returns the run in the shape of the submission status. Needs applications:write and the Autopilot plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "runId": "<runId>",
      "reviewSeq": "<reviewSeq>",
      "consents": "<consents>"
    },
    "name": "getfund_approve_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	Yes
`consents`	Yes
`reviewSeq`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the browser ticks declarations and submits the form, that the submission cannot be taken back, that approval requires an explicit post-read-back yes, and that plan and billing checks run again. It also maps consent errors and returns the run in submission-status shape, which is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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 dense but front-loads the purpose and then supplies necessary high-stakes details: irreversibility, consent requirements, error conditions, plan checks, and auth. The wording is somewhat packed and could be more scannable, but nearly every sentence carries operational value.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition covers prerequisites, consent semantics, irreversibility, error outcomes, billing/plan checks, required permissions, and return shape by reference to submission status. The only minor gap is that runId itself is not independently described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for reviewSeq and consents: reviewSeq is the review's seq, consents must contain every declaration id the review lists, and missing or extra ids produce specific errors. runId is only implicitly covered through the hosted-run context, leaving one required parameter less explicitly defined.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it approves the review that a hosted run is waiting for, specifically a waiting_founder review with reason review, and sends the application to the program. This distinguishes it from siblings such as getfund_submit_application and getfund_submission_status by tying it to the hosted-run review workflow.

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 clear when-to-use context: the run must be waiting_founder with reason review, and the founder must have explicitly agreed after the fields and every declaration were read back. It does not name a direct alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All getfund tools Inspect

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

Need Help?