Submit predictions files or kernels to Kaggle competitions with optional version and message. Use file or kernel parameters to complete your competition entry.
Submit predictions file or kernel to a competition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp | Yes | ||
| file | No | ||
| kernel | No | ||
| message | No | Submission via Kaggle MCP | |
| kernel_version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a submission action but does not disclose side effects such as creating a submission record, overwriting previous submissions, quota/rate limits, or required permissions. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the two submission modes are stated economically.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and fully empty schema descriptions, a one-line description is far from adequate. The agent is left without information about required inputs, parameter semantics, behavior, or return values, making correct invocation unlikely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the meanings of 'file' and 'kernel' ('predictions file or kernel'). It does not explain 'comp,' 'message,' 'kernel_version,' or the relationship and trade-offs between the file and kernel parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action—submitting predictions—and the target resource (a competition). It also distinguishes between file and kernel submission modes, which helps differentiate it from the many list/download competition tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'submit,' not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.