Lanzamientos IA

Submit a new AI tool

submit_tool

Submit a new AI tool to Lanzamientos IA on behalf of its maker. Creates a draft listing (not yet public) and returns a claimUrl the maker must visit to sign up and claim/publish it. Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool — never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email. Rate-limited globally to 5 submissions per hour. Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can: they are what make the published listing look like a real product page rather than a stub.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The tool's https homepage URL.
`name`	Yes	The tool's name.
`email`	Yes	The maker's email — used to claim the listing on signup.
`logoUrl`	No	https URL of the tool's logo. We copy it to our own storage — we never hotlink the maker's host.
`tagline`	No	One line shown on every card (max 60 chars). Supply it — without one we fall back to a truncated description.
`xHandle`	No	X/Twitter handle, without the @.
`category`	Yes	Category slug, e.g. 'agents', 'writing', 'coding', 'design', 'marketing', 'productivity', 'video', 'analytics'.
`imageUrls`	No	Up to 5 https screenshot URLs, best first. Copied to our own storage. Without any, the listing shows a generated placeholder card instead of a real screenshot.
`description`	Yes	A description of the tool (40-1000 chars).
`problemSolved`	No	What problem the tool solves, in the maker's words (max 160 chars). Rendered as its own block on the listing page.
`xHandleIsFounder`	No	True when the handle is the founder's personal account rather than the product's.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`error`	No
`claimUrl`	No	Where the maker signs up to claim the DRAFT. Present only when ok is true.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite basic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: creates a draft rather than a public listing, returns a maker-claim URL, globally rate-limited to 5/hour, and copies logo/images to its own storage rather than hotlinking. These are meaningful operational facts 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then provides the one-sentence claim flow, usage guardrail, rate limit, and quality guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters, 5 required fields, and an output schema, the description richly covers the behavioral context: draft vs. public, claimUrl return, consent requirement, rate limiting, and optional-parameter value. Nothing critical is omitted for an agent to decide when and how to call this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing optional fields ('Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can') and their impact on listing quality ('real product page rather than a stub'), which guides an agent in collecting useful parameters beyond just their schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: 'Submit a new AI tool to Lanzamientos IA on behalf of its maker' and immediately clarifies the draft/claim flow. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_checkout and search_tools by explaining this tool creates a non-public draft with a claimUrl.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage direction: 'Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool — never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email.' This tells the agent when to use it, when not to use it, and a critical consent/email limitation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Lanzamientos IA tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, retrieving details, listing alternatives, listing offers, creating a checkout, and submitting a new tool. Descriptions clearly differentiate search_tools from list_alternatives (free-text vs. named competitor) and get_tool (specific slug lookup), so an agent can reliably choose the right one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_checkout, get_tool, list_alternatives, list_offers, search_tools, submit_tool). The verbs are distinct and meaningful, making the API highly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a server that handles discovery, submission, and paid promotion for AI tool listings. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels appropriate for the domain's complexity.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the primary user journeys: finding tools (search_tools), examining a specific tool (get_tool), comparing alternatives (list_alternatives), understanding promotional offers (list_offers), purchasing an offer (create_checkout), and adding new tools (submit_tool). There are no obvious dead ends, and the workflow from discovery to purchase to submission is fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?