register_appRegister a web URL in your LaunchTrust account so it can be fully scanned and monitored. Idempotent — if the URL is already registered, returns the existing app. Requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public https URL of the app to register. | |
| name | No | Optional label (defaults to the hostname). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency behavior (returns existing app) and the token/subscription requirement, which are 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?
Two sentences only, with the first stating the main action and the second covering idempotency and requirements. No wasted words.
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 simple registration tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, idempotency, and prerequisites. It could mention the return format explicitly, but 'returns the existing app' is sufficient.
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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description does not add new information beyond the schema (e.g., the 'name' default is already in the schema). Thus, baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'register', the resource 'web URL', and the purpose 'so it can be fully scanned and monitored'. It also notes idempotency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_url' or 'list_my_apps'.
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 description mentions prerequisites ('LaunchTrust token and an active subscription') and the idempotent behavior. While it implies registration is a precursor to scanning, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_app' or 'get_scan_history'.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving rules vs jurisdictions vs scan results vs triggering scans vs verification. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (snake_case) pattern: get_, list_, register_, scan_, verify_. Conventions are uniform throughout.
9 tools cover the essential operations for compliance scanning: registration, scanning (full and quick), results retrieval, history, and verification. The scope feels well-calibrated.
Core CRUD-like coverage is present: register, scan, read results, verify. Missing update/delete for apps or scans is a minor gap but not critical for the domain's primary workflow.