scan_appRun the full LaunchTrust scan on one of your registered apps and store a signed, dated evidence record. Requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription. Limited to 5 scans per app per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The id of a registered app (see list_my_apps or register_app). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses mutation behavior (stores a record) and adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the daily rate limit and token requirement. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so no contradiction.
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 concise sentences cover the action, outcome, prerequisites, and limits. No fluff, every sentence is informative.
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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, requirements, and constraints. Lacks details on return value but is still adequate for an agent.
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% for the single parameter, with the property description referencing how to obtain the app_id. The tool description does not need to add more, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific action ('run the full LaunchTrust scan'), the target resource ('one of your registered apps'), and the outcome ('store a signed, dated evidence record'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_url' and 'get_scan_history'.
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 explicitly mentions prerequisites ('requires a LaunchTrust token and an active subscription') and a rate limit ('limited to 5 scans per app per day'). While it does not directly compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.