Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Stables MCP Server

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Submit information request evidence

submit_rfi_evidence
Destructive

Submit required evidence and answers for RFI compliance review in one request. Provide necessary documentation promptly to facilitate review and release held payments.

Instructions

Submit the answers and documents an evidence requirement asks for, in one request, keyed as get_rfi_evidence_form lists them. Files are base64 data URLs ('data:application/pdf;base64,...'). The requirement moves to 'submitted' for Stables compliance to review; approving it releases the held payment once nothing else is outstanding. Confirm the content with a human before sending: it goes to compliance as the customer's answer.

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>",
      "rfiId": "<rfiId>",
      "requirementId": "<requirementId>",
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "submit_rfi_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfiIdYesThe RFI ID
answersYesAnswers keyed by the form's field keys and document wire_field names, e.g. { funds_origin, funds_origin_explanation, supporting_documents: ['data:application/pdf;base64,...'] }
customerIdYesThe customer ID
requirementIdYesThe requirement ID (type 'evidence')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.6.11
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / answers / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the state transition ('moves to submitted'), the downstream consequence ('approving it releases the held payment once nothing else is outstanding'), that the content goes to compliance as the customer's answer, and mandates human confirmation first. This is exactly the extra context a destructiveHint/non-idempotent mutation needs and the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and encoding, then the side effect, then the safety gate. No sentence is filler; the final human-confirmation warning is placed after the consequence it guards against, which is the right order.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the action, input encoding, resulting state, and approval consequence, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It doesn't say what happens on validation failure or whether resubmitting replaces a prior submission (relevant given idempotentHint=false), which is the remaining gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by specifying the encoding convention ('Files are base64 data URLs') and, more importantly, that answers must be keyed as get_rfi_evidence_form lists them — a cross-tool linkage the schema's example only gestures at.

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 and resource ('Submit the answers and documents an `evidence` requirement asks for') and scopes it to a single requirement in one request. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling get_rfi_evidence_form, so an agent can tell it apart from the form-fetching and other submission tools.

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?

Clear implied when-to-use: for requirements of type 'evidence', with answers keyed as get_rfi_evidence_form lists them, plus an explicit prerequisite ('Confirm the content with a human before sending'). It doesn't name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g., what to do for non-evidence requirement types like entitlement requirements), which keeps it just under a 5.

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