designsafe-mcp

by kks32

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

submit_job

Submit an approved job using its unique approval token, ensuring only validated requests are executed.

Instructions

Submit a validated job. Refuses without the approval token minted by approve_submission for this exact request.

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": {
      "job": "<job>",
      "approval_token": "<approval_token>"
    },
    "name": "submit_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job`	Yes
`approval_token`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral context. It discloses the refusal behavior for missing or mismatched tokens, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether submission is a mutating operation, any permission requirements, or what happens on success.

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 primary action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 specifies the essential token prerequisite but leaves the job parameter undefined. It relies on the reader's understanding that the job was validated elsewhere, which is reasonable but not fully self-contained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should enrich both parameters. It only clarifies approval_token by linking it to approve_submission; the job parameter remains opaque with no structure, examples, or references to build_job_request or validate_job.

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 identifies the tool's function with the verb 'Submit' and the resource 'validated job'. The refusal condition adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_job and approve_submission.

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 implies a workflow: the job must be validated and an approval token from approve_submission is required. It explicitly names approve_submission, providing a clear precondition, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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