Skip to main content
Glama

submit_candidate_decision

Record a newly discovered engineering convention for human review. Candidates require approval before being served to other agents.

Instructions

Record a new engineering convention you discovered while working — for human review.

    Call this when you find an undocumented convention, a tricky gotcha, or a preferred
    pattern that Metatron did not already know but future agents should. It is stored as
    an uncurated CANDIDATE: a human maintainer must approve it in the Metatron UI or CLI
    before it becomes canonical and is served to other agents. Nothing you submit here is
    auto-promoted.

    Returns the new candidate decision's id.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYesThe concrete rule or guideline, stated imperatively (e.g. "Use internal.http for outbound calls, not the requests library").
scopeYesWhere the rule applies: a file path, directory/glob, or architectural layer (e.g. "src/services/**"), or "global".
rationaleYesWhy the convention exists — the problem or bug it prevents (e.g. "flaky network caused phantom 5xx errors; the internal client retries").
confidenceNoHow strongly the team holds this convention.medium

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that submissions are stored as uncurated candidates requiring human approval before becoming canonical, and nothing is auto-promoted. However, it does not mention idempotency or potential side effects like duplicates, which slightly limits transparency.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear structure with a brief overview followed by detailed usage guidance. While mostly concise, a slightly more compact version could be achieved without losing clarity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated by context), the description appropriately notes that the tool returns the new candidate decision's id. The description, combined with the schema, provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's functionality and lifecycle.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does not add new meaning beyond reiterating the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 records a new engineering convention for human review. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_decisions_for_context' (reading) and 'submit_feedback' (feedback) by focusing on submitting a candidate convention for later approval.

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 explicitly explains when to call the tool: 'when you find an undocumented convention, a tricky gotcha, or a preferred pattern that Metatron did not already know but future agents should.' It also clarifies that submissions are not auto-promoted, providing clear context for appropriate use.

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/kerbelp/metatron'

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