Skip to main content
Glama

submit_training_job

Destructive

Queue an AI Toolkit training job (typically LoRA) by supplying a YAML config and GPU type/count. Returns once the job is queued; use status/result tools to monitor and retrieve outputs.

Instructions

Submit an AI Toolkit training job (typically LoRA training).

Backs ``POST /prod/v1/trainers/ai-toolkit/jobs``. The job mounts a
``READY`` dataset and runs the config you supply. Training runs for
hours — this returns as soon as the job is queued; track it with
``get_training_job_status`` and pull artifacts with
``get_training_job_result``.

Args:
    config_file: The complete AI Toolkit YAML config as a string.
        Two paths in it are fixed by the platform:
        ``training_folder`` must be ``/app/ai-toolkit/output``, and
        the dataset's ``folder_path`` must be
        ``/app/ai-toolkit/datasets/{dataset_name}`` where
        ``dataset_name`` is the dataset's ``name`` (not its id).
    gpu_type: ``ADA_80_PLUS`` (H100) or ``HOPPER_141`` (H200).
    gpu_count: 1 for single-GPU (default), or 8 for multi-GPU.
        Multi-GPU is only supported on ``ADA_80_PLUS``.
    gpu_id: Optional specific GPU selector, e.g. ``"#1"``.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gpu_idNo
gpu_typeNoADA_80_PLUS
gpu_countNo
config_fileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal that this is a non-read, potentially destructive action, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns as soon as the job is queued, mounts a READY dataset, runs the supplied config, and has platform-fixed paths. It does not elaborate on the exact destructive or cost implications, but it provides solid context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence establishes the purpose, the second sentence explains asynchrony and the tracking workflow, and the Args section gives each parameter a tight, useful explanation. Nothing in the description is filler, and the length is justified by the complexity of the operation and the lack of schema-level parameter descriptions.

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?

The description covers the READY dataset requirement, asynchronous queue behavior, tracking via get_training_job_status, artifact retrieval via get_training_job_result, and all GPU/config constraints. It does not explicitly state the return shape, such as the job ID used for later tracking, which would be more important here since there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains config_file as a complete YAML string with mandatory fixed paths, defines gpu_type values as H100/H200, specifies gpu_count 1 vs 8 with the ADA-only multi-GPU constraint, and describes gpu_id as an optional selector. Every parameter receives actionable detail.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit an AI Toolkit training job', notes it typically covers LoRA training, and names the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from the status, result, cancel, and resume siblings.

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?

The description gives clear workflow context: training runs for hours, the call returns once queued, and subsequent tracking uses get_training_job_status and get_training_job_result. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like submit_request or run_model, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/runcomfy-com/runcomfy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server