Skip to main content
Glama

ck_review_submit

Submit a governed plan, diff, or completion for human review. Creates a review record with ID and URL for approval decisions.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a write operation, creates a review record, returns a review_id and browser URL, and that the decision is pending. It also explains the polling workflow. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., duplicate submissions) or required permissions, which would improve transparency.

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 fairly long but packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and gradually adds details like iterative refinement and post-submission workflow. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more condensed without losing clarity. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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), the description covers the key workflow: submission, return values (review_id, status, URL), and polling. It also explains iterative refinement. However, it does not describe all parameters or provide examples of the return values' structure. For a tool of this complexity, the description is largely complete but could benefit from more parameter context.

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 has 23 parameters with 61% description coverage. The description adds meaning for key parameters like review_type, submission_body, previous_review_id, and plan_phase, which are crucial for correct invocation. However, many parameters (e.g., alignment_context, code_snippets) are not elaborated in the description, though they have schema descriptions. The description compensates partially for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'governed plan, diff, or completion packet' for human review. It distinguishes from siblings like ck_review_status (polling) and ck_review_feedback (recording decisions) by mentioning them explicitly. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('submit a governed plan... for human review and execution gating') and when not to (after submission, poll ck_review_status; use ck_review_feedback to record a decision). It also provides context for iterative refinement with previous_review_id and plan_phase. No exclusions are needed beyond what is given.

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