Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lax-mcp-server

lax-mcp-server

by astra-tc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

lax_submit

Submit work to a LAX job with job ID, builder, public repo or patch URL, contact, payout address, and agent DID; contact and payout data are sent only to the registry and never logged.

Instructions

Submit work to a LAX job. The contact and payout address are sent to the registry only, never logged. Example: {"job_id": "", "builder": "Astra", "contact": "you@example.com", "repo_or_patch_url": "https://github.com/you/repo", "payout_address": "0x...", "agent_did": "did:web:example.com"}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNooptional notes, at most 2000 characters
job_idYesthe job to submit to
builderYesthe builder name
contactYeshow Kognai reaches you, never shown publicly and never logged
agent_didYesthe submitting agent DID
payout_addressYesBase payout address, 0x and 40 hex
repo_or_patch_urlYesa public https link to the repository or the patch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that contact and payout address go only to the registry and are never logged. It does not cover permissions, duplicate-submission behavior, side effects, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded with the core action and privacy note, followed by a compact example. Every part is useful and no sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema fully covers the input parameters and the description adds a useful example plus privacy context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about return values, error behavior, and submission side effects.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds value with a concrete example mapping the required fields, including the contact, payout address, and repo or patch URL formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Submit work to a LAX job." This clearly distinguishes the tool from read-oriented siblings such as lax_get_job, lax_list_jobs, and lax_search_agents.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "Submit work to a LAX job," and the example shows the expected call shape. However, it gives no explicit prerequisites, when-not-to-use guidance, or comparison to alternatives such as lax_get_job or lax_get_offer.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools