mcpforwork

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

confirm_submitted

Finalize job application submissions after user confirmation, updating application state, deduplicating records, and maintaining audit trails.

Instructions

AFTER the human confirms they clicked Submit: close the loop (state, dedup record, audit).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "application_id": "<application_id>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_submitted"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`evidence`	No
`application_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry disclosure. It reveals side effects (state update, dedup, audit) but does not detail idempotency, error handling, or any destructive potential. It gives partial transparency, which is decent but not comprehensive.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key condition, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without being under-specified to the point of uselessness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and two simple parameters, the description provides adequate 'when' and 'what' context but lacks parameter explanations and deeper behavioral details. It is workable but leaves room for misinvocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of application_id or evidence. It adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema, so the agent is left to infer parameter roles from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states the tool is for use after human confirms submission, and it 'closes the loop' with specific actions (state, dedup record, audit). This goes beyond a tautology and distinguishes it from request_submit and submit_findings, though 'close the loop' is slightly vague.

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 sets a temporal condition ('AFTER the human confirms they clicked Submit'), providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sequential implication is enough for basic guidance.

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