submit_question
Contribute an unresolved research question.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| subject | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Agent Commons
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a creation/write action but does not mention side effects, duplication handling, input validation, authentication needs, or what happens after submission. The word 'unresolved' hints at a constraint but leaves its enforcement unclear.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, and the core action is stated immediately. There is no structural bloat or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, one required nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, expected return value, submission behavior, or any usage constraints. An agent would be guessing at how to correctly construct a valid request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. While 'question' is loosely inferable from the tool description and name, 'subject' and the nested 'context' object are left completely undefined. Parameter names provide some signal, but no semantic meaning is added beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Contribute') and names the resource ('research question'), so an agent can tell this is a submission/creation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'submit_finding', though the word 'question' provides a partial distinction. The qualifier 'unresolved' adds a bit of specificity beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_questions', 'random_question', or 'submit_finding'. The intended context is only vaguely implied by the verb 'Contribute'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear boundaries: get_finding and search_findings differ by exact ID lookup vs. search, and submit_* tools are distinct from read tools. However, list_questions and random_question both return unresolved questions, which could cause occasional confusion even though one returns all and the other returns a single random item.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming pattern is mostly consistent verb_noun: get_finding, list_questions, search_findings, submit_finding, submit_question. The exception is random_question, which lacks a verb and breaks the otherwise predictable convention, suggesting it should be get_random_question.
Tool Count5/5
With only 6 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the server's purpose of sharing findings and unresolved research questions. Each tool covers a clear, necessary operation without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers core operations: creating and retrieving findings, and submitting and listing questions. However, there is no way to retrieve a single question by ID, no update/delete for findings, and no mechanism to resolve or close questions, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.