QC Database MCP Server

complete_form_submission

Complete a form submission to lock it and provide evidence for reference requests. Only use after user confirms the form is finished.

Instructions

Mark a form submission complete. Completed forms are evidence that can satisfy reference requests. This locks the submission - only do it when the user confirms the form is finished.

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": {
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "complete_form_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`submission_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the action locks the submission (irreversible state change) and that completed forms satisfy reference requests. Does not detail permissions, errors, or side effects beyond locking.

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?

Two sentences: first states the action, second explains consequence and usage. Efficient and front-loaded with the key verb 'Mark'. No wasted words.

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?

Tool is simple (1 param) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. Description explains purpose, usage, and behavioral implications (locking). Could mention what happens if submission is already complete, but still adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% meaning description adds nothing about parameters. The single parameter 'submission_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but the description does not elaborate on its format or constraints. With only one simple parameter, the lack of description is acceptable but not ideal.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Mark a form submission complete') and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_itp_complete' by specifying form submissions. Also adds context about evidence and reference requests.

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?

Explicitly says 'only do it when the user confirms the form is finished', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context of locking implies it is a final action.

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