Skip to main content
Glama

submit_committee

Submit the committee transcript after prepare_committee to parse the CIO verdict, apply investment rules, and save the final decision. Returns an error if no parseable verdict is found.

Instructions

Step 2 of the agent-run committee: hand in the transcript you produced from prepare_committee. The backend parses the CIO memo, applies the same deterministic rules as the backend-run committee (single-investment cap, defense downgrade, sanity checks), saves the decision and returns it.

If the CIO section has no parseable verdict, nothing is saved and this returns an error — fix the CIO section and submit again.

Returns: decision_id, the post-rule verdict object, saved path and facts_source ("prepare" = rules used the facts saved at prepare time; "transcript" = no recent prepare found, facts were read from your text).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoModel that actually played the roles, e.g. 'claude-sonnet-5-5'; omitted -> recorded as 'unknown'. The scorecard buckets verdicts by provider:model.
symbolYesSame symbol you passed to prepare_committee.
providerNoWhich agent played the roles, e.g. 'hermes', 'claude', 'codex'.agent
transcriptYesAll sections, each starting with its separator line: === MACRO ===, === QUANT_R1 ===, === RISK_R1 ===, === QUANT_R2 ===, === RISK_R2 ===, === CIO ===.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.45.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false / destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with the mutation claim ('saves the decision'). It adds real behavior beyond annotations: the no-parseable-verdict error path, the deterministic rules applied, and the facts_source distinction. It does not clarify whether resubmitting creates a duplicate decision, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the workflow step, then error handling, then returns. The Returns section restates what the output schema presumably carries, but the whole thing is compact and each section does useful work.

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?

Covers the happy path, the error path, and the facts_source semantics, which is enough for an agent to call and recover correctly. With an output schema present, the returns prose is redundant, and the repeat-submission/idempotency question is left open.

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 schema already documents symbol, transcript sections, model, and provider. The description confirms the symbol must match prepare_committee but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('hand in the transcript', 'Step 2 of the agent-run committee') and anchors itself to the workflow step, naming prepare_committee as the predecessor. An agent can distinguish it from prepare_committee and run_committee without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as step 2 following prepare_committee and contrasts the agent-run path with the 'backend-run committee'. It also states the failure condition and remediation. It never explicitly says when to prefer run_committee over this path, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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