submit_toolSubmit a website to VibeHacker. Reads the site, drafts the listing, and files it for review. Requires a token. If the website was already submitted, returns the existing listing instead of creating a duplicate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The product's website, e.g. https://example.com | |
| note | No | Optional note for the reviewer (not published). | |
| maker | No | Set true if you built this product. Default true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral context: it reads the site, drafts the listing, requires a token, and returns an existing listing instead of creating duplicates, which gives the agent useful real-world behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: three sentences, each earning its place by covering the main action, the auth prerequisite, and idempotent behavior. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
For a relatively simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, auth requirement, and duplicate handling. It does not specify the exact return value for a new submission or the token source, but it gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, although 'Submit a website' maps naturally to the required url parameter and 'drafts the listing' hints at how the input is used.
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 a website to VibeHacker', then details the workflow of reading the site, drafting the listing, and filing for review. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like preview_tool, search_tools, and upvote_tool by describing a unique submission workflow.
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 intended use is implied clearly—submit a website when you want it listed on VibeHacker—and the token requirement is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, such as using preview_tool for drafting or my_submissions for checking existing submissions, so usage guidance vs siblings is incomplete.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource/action: exact retrieval, category listing, search, submission drafting, submitting, own submissions, and voting. preview_tool and submit_tool are clearly separated by whether the listing is filed for review.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_tool, search_tools, submit_tool). my_submissions breaks the pattern by using a possessive phrase instead of a verb.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a directory-and-voting service: three discovery operations, three submission-related operations, and one engagement operation. There is no apparent bloat or redundancy.
Core discovery, submission, and upvote workflows are covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit category browsing or update/delete for submissions, but agents can likely work around them via search and submission status.