work2own-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

submit_quest_proof

Submit proof for a reserved quest slot with one answer per step: include a note and, for on-chain steps, the transaction hash.

Instructions

Submits the proof for a reserved quest slot: one answer per step (a note and, for on-chain steps, the transaction hash).

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": {
      "questId": "<questId>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "submit_quest_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`links`	No
`notes`	No	optional notes for the employer
`steps`	Yes
`questId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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. It does disclose the proof shape (one answer per step, note plus txHash for on-chain steps), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether submission is one-shot per slot, what happens on failure, or the effect of the mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and no padding. Efficient, though it could have used a second short clause for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core submission semantics but omits prerequisite/permission context and the meaning of half the parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-parameter submission tool.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the 'steps' structure and the on-chain txHash requirement, but leaves 'links' and 'questId' unexplained and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (proof for a reserved quest slot), which is enough to tell it apart from create_quest or review_quest_submission. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'reserved quest slot' scope is clear.

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?

The phrase 'reserved quest slot' implies the prerequisite that a slot must already exist (via reserve_quest_slot) and that this is the submission step, but it never states when to use this vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or ordering constraints.

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