Skip to main content
Glama

ck_review_submit

Submit a plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating. Returns a review ID and URL to approve or deny.

Instructions

Submit a governed plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating. Write operation — creates a review record and returns a review_id and browser URL. review_type controls what is being submitted: plan (before implementation), diff (before merging), or completion (task done). submission_body is the full content: plan text, diff, or completion description. For iterative plan refinement, pass previous_review_id and plan_phase (ticket → research_packet → design_options → narrowed_decision → implementation_plan → code_backed_plan). Returns review_id, status (pending), and a URL where the human reviewer can approve or deny. After submission, poll ck_review_status until the decision is approved or denied before proceeding. Use ck_review_feedback (human-facing) to record a decision on an existing review.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alignment_contextNo
annotationsNoStructured key-value annotations for machine-readable metadata.
code_snippetsNo
codebase_findingsNo
consulted_rolesNo
feedback_notesNoFreeform feedback notes from the reviewer.
implementation_stepsNo
metadataNoArbitrary key-value metadata for extensibility and audit context.
options_consideredNo
plan_phaseNoCurrent phase of plan refinement.
previous_review_idNoReference to a prior review for iterative refinement.
prior_art_summaryNoSummary of prior attempts or related work.
rejected_optionsNo
research_summaryNoSummary of research performed before this submission.
review_typeNoType of review being submitted or queried (plan, diff, or completion).
scope_estimateNo
selected_optionNoThe chosen approach with rationale.
session_idNoUnique session identifier for correlating findings, proofs, budget, and audit trail.
submission_bodyYesFull submission content: plan text, diff, or completion description.
submitted_byNoIdentity of the submitter for audit trail.
task_idNoTask identifier within the session for scoped operations.
titleNoHuman-readable title for display and search.
validation_planNo
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation, creates a review record, and returns review_id, status, and a browser URL for human approval. It also outlines the workflow (submit then poll). Although no annotations are present, the description is transparent about the side effects and return values. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or idempotency, but still strong.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then details usage context, parameters, and expected workflow. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancies or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (23 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main intent, parameter types, return values, and post-submission polling. It insufficiently explains the many optional parameters like alignment_context, code_snippets, etc., but these are described in the schema. Overall, it provides enough context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 61% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the review_type enum values, submission_body as full content, and the iterative refinement parameters (previous_review_id, plan_phase). It also notes the return fields, compensating for gaps in the schema. The description does not cover all 23 parameters but the crucial ones are addressed.

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 purpose: submitting a governed plan, diff, or completion packet for human review. It specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'review', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning related tools like ck_review_status and ck_review_feedback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including review types (plan, diff, completion) and iterative refinement with previous_review_id and plan_phase. It also instructs to poll ck_review_status after submission and directs to use ck_review_feedback for recording decisions, covering both usage and alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aryaminus/controlkeel'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server