Skip to main content
Glama

ck_review_submit

Submit a plan, diff, or completion packet for human review, returning a review ID and URL for approval and execution gating.

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). The plan-quality scorer evaluates structured fields, not just submission_body — populate research_summary, options_considered, selected_option, rejected_options, implementation_steps, validation_plan, code_snippets, alignment_context, consulted_roles, codebase_findings, prior_art_summary, agent_spec_id, task_spec_id, agent_role, task_scope, out_of_scope, business_rules, domain_terms, allowed_actions, prohibited_actions, robustness_requirements, linked_policy_packs, linked_benchmark_suites, promotion_gates, allowed_semantic_changes, forbidden_semantic_changes, invariant_boundaries, requires_reapproval_if, harness_quality_checks, and scope_estimate for a strong score. 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
titleNoHuman-readable title for display and search.
task_idNoTask identifier within the session for scoped operations.
metadataNoArbitrary key-value metadata for extensibility and audit context.
agent_roleNoReviewed role label such as support agent, code reviewer, deployment agent, or sales assistant.
plan_phaseNoCurrent phase of plan refinement.
session_idNoUnique session identifier for correlating findings, proofs, budget, and audit trail.
task_scopeNoWhat the agent or task is expected to accomplish under this plan.
annotationsNoStructured key-value annotations for machine-readable metadata.
review_typeNoType of review being submitted or queried (plan, diff, or completion).
domain_termsNo
out_of_scopeNo
submitted_byNoIdentity of the submitter for audit trail.
task_spec_idNoStable identifier for the task-level behavior contract this plan is implementing.
agent_spec_idNoStable identifier for the agent role or task contract this plan is implementing.
code_snippetsNo
business_rulesNo
feedback_notesNoFreeform feedback notes from the reviewer.
scope_estimateNo
allowed_actionsNo
consulted_rolesNo
promotion_gatesNo
selected_optionNoThe chosen approach with rationale.
submission_bodyYesFull submission content: plan text, diff, or completion description.
validation_planNo
rejected_optionsNo
research_summaryNoSummary of research performed before this submission.
alignment_contextNo
codebase_findingsNo
prior_art_summaryNoSummary of prior attempts or related work.
options_consideredNo
previous_review_idNoReference to a prior review for iterative refinement.
prohibited_actionsNo
linked_policy_packsNo
implementation_stepsNo
invariant_boundariesNoSystem invariants and boundaries that must remain true during execution.
harness_quality_checksNoAgent-harness quality checks such as context hygiene, proof completeness, rollback safety, and compaction fidelity.
requires_reapproval_ifNoConditions that require human re-approval before continuing.
linked_benchmark_suitesNo
robustness_requirementsNo
allowed_semantic_changesNoSemantic behavior changes explicitly approved for this plan.
persona_or_actor_contextNoUser role, customer tier, permission state, or operating context relevant to behavior.
forbidden_semantic_changesNoSemantic behavior changes the agent must not introduce without a new review.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
statusNo
review_idNo
review_urlNo
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Write operation — creates a review record and returns a review_id and browser URL,' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It goes beyond annotations by detailing the three review types, the iterative refinement mechanism, and that the plan-quality scorer evaluates structured fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively long but front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Each sentence adds value: first sentence gives purpose and returns, then explains types, iteration, scorer fields, return values, polling instructions, and sibling tools. It could be slightly more terse, but the density is justified given the complexity (42 params).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (42 parameters, nested objects, multiple review types, iterative refinement, and an output schema), the description is thorough. It covers return values (review_id, status, URL), polling behavior, iteration pattern, and the importance of structured fields for scoring. The output schema handles return format, so no gap there. Complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema covers only 57% of parameters, but the description adds significant meaning to many: it explains the role of review_type, submission_body, previous_review_id, plan_phase, and lists numerous structured fields that influence the score (e.g., research_summary, options_considered). This compensates well for the schema coverage gap, providing context beyond the schema.

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: 'Submit a governed plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating.' It uses a specific verb ('submit') and identifies distinct resource types (plan, diff, completion), differentiating it from sibling tools like ck_review_status (polling) and ck_review_feedback (recording decisions).

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 when-to-use guidance: for iterative plan refinement, pass previous_review_id and plan_phase. It also tells the agent what to do after submission: 'After submission, poll ck_review_status until the decision is approved or denied before proceeding.' It explicitly names sibling tools (ck_review_feedback, ck_review_status) and their roles, offering clear context 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