Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bokken

bokken

by maglionejm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

submit_input

Submit an answer to the pending Founder-mode question to log simulated evidence and run the session again.

Instructions

Answer the session's pending Founder-mode question, then run_session again.

The answer is attributed to this client's handshake identity, so the engine that consumes it journals agent-supplied (simulated) evidence rather than human testimony.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "question_id": "<question_id>",
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "submit_input"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
answerYes
question_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses attribution and journaling of simulated evidence, but with no annotations it doesn't mention other side effects or state changes that may occur.

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?

Two sentences with no excessive detail; the 'then run_session again' instruction is slightly extraneous but not bloated.

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?

Leaves parameter semantics and output/result behavior unexplained; only partial workflow context is given.

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 has no parameter descriptions and the tool description only hints at 'question'; 'name', 'question_id', and 'answer' are not explicitly defined.

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?

Clearly states the tool answers a pending Founder-mode session question and references run_session for the next step; however, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond that.

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?

Indicates when to use (pending question) and the next step (run_session again), but doesn't spell out when not to use or how it compares to alternatives like run_session or step_session.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools