@instantreply/mcp

submit_stored_template

Destructive

Submit a stored template draft to Meta for approval. Confirmation required before submission.

Instructions

Submit an existing stored template draft to Meta for approval. Ask for confirmation before use.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "submit_stored_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the irreversibility bar is partly covered, but the description adds meaningful beyond-schema context: the target is an external approval system (Meta) and user confirmation is required before invoking. It still omits what happens on rejection/failure, but the external-submission and confirmation cues are valuable additions.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action and target front-loaded and the caution placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the essentials (what, where, confirmation) but drops operational detail: whether submission is one-way, what a valid id looks like, and what the agent should expect after approval.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Existing stored template draft' implies the id identifies a previously saved draft, but format (UUID), lookup behavior, and error cases for an invalid id are not addressed.

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 (submit) plus resource (existing stored template draft) and destination (Meta for approval). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_template by scoping to an already-stored draft, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

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?

Adds a procedural caution ('Ask for confirmation before use'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when this should be chosen over validate_template_draft, validate_template, or submit_template, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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