cmt-mcp

get_submission

Fetch a complete Microsoft CMT conference submission summary, including authors, abstract, files, subject areas, answers, and dates, by conference and submission ID.

Instructions

Full submission summary: authors, abstract, files, subject areas, question answers, dates.

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": {
      "conference": "<conference>",
      "submission_id": "<submission_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_submission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`refresh`	No
`conference`	Yes
`submission_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what data is returned, which is useful, but omits key behaviors such as read-only status, permission needs, caching/refresh semantics implied by the refresh parameter, and error handling.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler. Every word contributes to describing the returned data, though the fragment format lacks a clear verb and leaves the explanation minimal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing returned fields. However, it does not document required parameters, does not explain the refresh option, and provides no usage context for a tool that requires a conference and submission_id.

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 adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. It does not explain conference, submission_id, or the refresh flag, leaving an agent with no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.

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?

The description names the resource (submission) and specifies the full set of data returned: authors, abstract, files, subject areas, question answers, dates. It is clearly a detail-fetch tool rather than a list tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_submissions or get_reviews.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as list_submissions, nor does it explain when a full submission summary is preferable to other retrieval tools.

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

Deploy Server