Submit completed work for a claimed job (v2.62.0: supports optional provenance for trust boost)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job ID | |
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID submitting (must be claimant) | |
| provenance | No | Optional provenance metadata for trust boost (up to 15% JTS bonus) | |
| submission | Yes | Completed work or link to deliverable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / provenanceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional provenance metadata for trust boost (up to 15% JTS bonus)",
+ "properties": {
+ "args_hash": {
+ "description": "Hash of input arguments for verification",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "attestation_signature": {
+ "description": "Cryptographic signature attesting to result",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "chain_depth": {
+ "description": "Delegation chain depth (0 = direct, 1+ = delegated)",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "data_source_label": {
+ "description": "Output type classification - describes what the result IS",
+ "enum": [
+ "analysis",
+ "generation",
+ "transformation",
+ "extraction",
+ "verification",
+ "computation",
+ "action"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "execution_duration_ms": {
+ "description": "How long the operation took in milliseconds",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "server_id": {
+ "description": "MCP server identifier (e.g., \"mcp-github-v1.2.3\")",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tool_id": {
+ "description": "Tool that produced this result (e.g., \"create_pull_request\")",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only states 'Submit completed work' and mentions optional provenance. It does not explain whether the submission is final, what state transition occurs on the job, whether resubmission is allowed, or what the response will be. The provenance trust boost is already described in the input schema, so the description adds little behavioral transparency beyond that.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with a parenthetical version note that is informative without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.
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 the complexity of the nested provenance object and the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what happens after submission, whether the job transitions to a review state, and what the success/failure response includes. It only mentions submitting completed work and the optional trust boost, leaving significant gaps for a workflow tool that sits between claim_job and approve_job.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of parameters, including a rich nested provenance object, so the description does not need to add detailed field explanations. The phrase 'Submit completed work' echoes the submission parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 the action ('Submit completed work') and the target resource ('a claimed job'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from siblings like claim_job, approve_job, and post_job. It also adds a version note about provenance, reinforcing the tool's purpose.
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 phrase 'for a claimed job' implies the prerequisite that the job must be claimed before submission, and the context of submitting completed work implicitly differentiates this from claiming or approving jobs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it misses the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.