Skip to main content
Glama

ck_review_submit

Submit a plan, diff, or completion packet for human review and execution gating. Creates a review record and returns a review ID and browser URL for approval.

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description confirms it is a write operation that creates a new review record (non-idempotent) and returns a pending status. It also describes the polling workflow and references the review feedback tool. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention potential error conditions or rate limits.

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 long but well-structured. It begins with the primary purpose, then details parameter usage, iterative refinement, scoring, and post-submission workflow. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., listing many fields). Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified.

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?

The description covers the complete workflow: submission, polling for status, and referencing the feedback tool. It explains the iterative refinement process and the quality scorer. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. Lacks edge-case handling but is sufficient for typical use.

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 schema has 42 parameters with 57% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the purpose of key parameters like review_type, submission_body, previous_review_id, and plan_phase. It also elaborates on the structured fields used by the plan-quality scorer, adding meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 submits governed plans, diffs, or completion packets for human review and execution gating. It specifies it is a write operation that creates a review record and returns a review_id and browser URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ck_review_status and ck_review_feedback by describing the overall 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool: to submit a plan, diff, or completion for review. It mentions iterative refinement via previous_review_id and plan_phase. It also instructs the agent to poll ck_review_status after submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or list alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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