Skip to main content
Glama

submit_task

Submit proof of completed work for a claimed task. Provide a description of the work done and how it meets criteria, with optional photo description.

Instructions

Submit proof of completed work for a claimed task.

The previous step in the project must be completed first.

Args: task_id: The task ID you completed. proof_text: Description of the work you did and how it meets the criteria. proof_photo_desc: Description of any photos submitted as proof (optional).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
proof_textYes
proof_photo_descNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The submit_task tool handler: sends a POST request to /api/tasks/{task_id}/submit with proof_text and proof_photo_desc, then returns the JSON response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def submit_task(task_id: int, proof_text: str, proof_photo_desc: str = "") -> str:
        """Submit proof of completed work for a claimed task.
    
        The previous step in the project must be completed first.
    
        Args:
            task_id: The task ID you completed.
            proof_text: Description of the work you did and how it meets the criteria.
            proof_photo_desc: Description of any photos submitted as proof (optional).
        """
        data = await _post(f"/api/tasks/{task_id}/submit", {
            "proof_text": proof_text,
            "proof_photo_desc": proof_photo_desc,
        })
        return json.dumps(data, indent=2)
  • Registration via @mcp.tool() decorator on the FastMCP instance, which registers submit_task as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def submit_task(task_id: int, proof_text: str, proof_photo_desc: str = "") -> str:
  • Helper function _post used by submit_task to make HTTP POST requests to the RobotFail API.
    async def _post(path: str, body: dict = None) -> dict:
        async with httpx.AsyncClient(timeout=60) as client:
            r = await client.post(f"{API_BASE}{path}", headers=_headers(), json=body or {})
            r.raise_for_status()
            return r.json()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the action and prerequisite but omits details like side effects (e.g., status updates), validation behavior, and potential outcomes of submitting proof.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one sentence for prerequisite, and a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key action and wastes no words.

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 description covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on output schema (despite its existence) and behavioral context. Given three parameters and multiple siblings, it has gaps in usage guidance and 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter meaningfully: task_id as the completed task, proof_text as work description, and proof_photo_desc as optional photo descriptions. This adds significant value.

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 action ('Submit proof of completed work for a claimed task'), specifying the verb 'submit' and the resource 'proof'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'claim_task' and 'approve_project' by focusing on proof submission.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite ('The previous step in the project must be completed first'), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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/guinevere-kingsley/robotfail-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server