Search a launch directory of new products, and submit and publish your own listing.
Scored across 12 tools
Most tools target clearly distinct resources or lifecycle steps: public browsing, owner listing management, and AI readiness checks. The main overlap is between publish and verify_backlink, since both can result in a listing going live, though the descriptions distinguish backlink verification from final publish re-checks.
The set is consistently snake_case and mostly follows verb_noun patterns such as get_product, list_categories, search_products, submit_product, and update_listing. Minor deviations are alternatives_to, which is not verb-led, and publish, which is a bare verb, but both remain readable.
Twelve tools is well within a reasonable range for a product directory with owner-side listing management. Each tool maps to a meaningful action, from discovery to submission, verification, publishing, and AI readiness auditing.
The surface covers public discovery, owner listing CRUD-style operations, backlink verification, publishing, and AI readiness checks. The main gap is that there is no delete or withdraw-listing operation, and some listing edits such as logos/screenshots are explicitly pushed to the browser.
Products on Launchator similar to a given listed product (same category or tags).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the similarity criterion (same category or tags), but says nothing about result count, ordering, or what happens if the slug is unknown or unpublished.
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?
One tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and the match rule appended. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little substance.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys the basic return concept (products similar to the given one). It stops short of stating result cardinality/ordering or where the slug comes from, which an agent needs to call it correctly the first time.
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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies that the slug identifies a 'listed product' and gives no format, source (e.g., from get_product or list_my_products), or constraint such as maxLength 80 or listing status.
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 names a concrete resource (products on Launchator) and a specific relation (similar to a given listed product), with the matching rule in parentheses. It is clear enough to distinguish from get_product or search_products, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants products related to a known one. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_products for keyword-based discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Free check of how well AI assistants and search engines can read and recommend the user's live product site: robots.txt rules for AI crawlers, server-rendered content, structured data, llms.txt, meta tags and more, with a score, the top fixes and copy-ready code. Up to 3 runs per listing per day. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context on top: external live-site fetch, authentication requirement, and a per-listing daily cap. It does not explain the consequence of readOnlyHint=false (what gets recorded/stored per run), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the audit checklist, then operational constraints (quota, token). Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return payload (score, top fixes, copy-ready code). Combined with the auth and rate-limit notes and the annotation hints, an agent has enough to invoke it; only the 'live product site' definition and the write/state side of the operation are left implicit.
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including where productId comes from, so the schema already handles semantics. The description does not mention the parameter at all, adding nothing beyond it — baseline 3 for high coverage.
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?
Names a specific action (audit how readable/recommendable the user's live product site is to AI assistants and search engines) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: robots.txt for AI crawlers, server-rendered content, structured data, llms.txt, meta tags. Nothing in the sibling list does anything similar (they are listing CRUD/search tools), so the tool is trivially distinguishable.
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?
Usage context is clear: it operates on a live product site identified by productId (from submit_product or list_my_products), needs an access token, and is capped at 3 runs per listing per day. It never states when NOT to use it or names a sibling alternative, but the preconditions effectively route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The HTML link the product's homepage must carry for a free listing, as a text link or a badge image. Add one to the site footer. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement ('Needs an access token'), which is genuine context beyond the structured fields, but it says nothing about prerequisites like the listing needing to be free/approved, nor whether the returned code differs per product.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler; the artifact description leads and the operational notes follow. Minor cost: the sentence fragments make the object of the tool slightly ambiguous at the front.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the artifact is, the two acceptable forms (text link or badge image), where it goes, and the auth requirement. It does not say whether both variants are returned or how they are selected, which is the remaining gap.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains productId and even names the sibling tools that produce it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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 names a specific artifact — 'the HTML link the product's homepage must carry for a free listing' — so the resource is identifiable, but it is a noun phrase with no verb; the agent must infer that the tool retrieves/returns that snippet rather than, say, validating it. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling verify_backlink, which deals with the same backlink concept.
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?
'Add one to the site footer' implies the lifecycle stage (after listing, before verification), and 'Needs an access token' is a real precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as verify_backlink or update_listing, leaving the sequence to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
One of the user's own listings or drafts. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context by noting the access-token requirement and that the resource is the user's own listing or draft. It does not describe return shape, missing-record behavior, or pagination, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.
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 two short sentences with no wasted text. The scope statement is front-loaded, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps in purpose and usage guidance.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers resource scope and auth requirements. It is still too thin on what the tool returns and how it differs from get_product or list_my_products, so it is only minimally complete.
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%, and the productId parameter is already explained as coming from submit_product or list_my_products. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 identifies the resource as one of the user's own listings or drafts, which adds scope beyond the name. However, it never states the action explicitly, relying on the tool name and title to imply retrieval. It does not distinguish this from the sibling get_product in the description text.
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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs an access token.' There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of list_my_products or get_product, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full details of one product listed on Launchator: description, website, category, tags and upvotes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product's slug, from search results or its URL launchator.com/p/{slug} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the payload contents (the field set returned), but says nothing about behavior when the slug is invalid or not found, nor about any rate or auth constraints.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and its payload with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or repeated.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by listing the fields. For a one-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.
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%, and the schema already explains that the slug comes from search results or a launchator.com/p/{slug} URL. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 states a specific resource ('one product listed on Launchator') and enumerates the returned fields (description, website, category, tags, upvotes), so an agent can tell this apart from list/search siblings like search_products. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'one product' signals a single-record lookup, presumably after the product has been identified elsewhere (search_products, list_my_products). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to alternatives such as get_my_product.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Launchator's product categories with how many products each has.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds that each category is returned with a product count, which is useful result context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether counts are store-wide or filtered.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly telegraphic ('with how many products each has') rather than crisp, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: a list of categories each paired with a product count. For a zero-argument read-only tool this is close to sufficient; only ordering and count scope are left open.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a 0-param tool 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 states the concrete resource (product categories) and what each entry carries (product counts), which goes beyond the bare name 'list_categories'. It doesn't need sibling differentiation since no other category tool exists in the sibling list.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus search_products or list_my_products, and no stated preconditions or follow-up use. The agent must infer that this is a taxonomy/browsing helper.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The user's own Launchator listings and drafts, with their status and next step. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the authentication requirement ('Needs an access token') and hinting at returned fields (status and next step), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens on an unauthorised call.
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 short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, then the prerequisite. 'Next step' is slightly opaque but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-param, read-only list with no output schema, the definition covers resource, scope, auth prerequisite, and a rough sketch of returned content. Pagination behaviour and result limits are the only notable omission.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax left undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: the user's own Launchator listings and drafts. The possessive 'own' implicitly distinguishes it from the catalogue-wide siblings (search_products, list_categories, get_product), but it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
Scope ('the user's own ... and drafts') implies when to reach for this over get_my_product or search_products, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement. An agent must infer the boundary from the possessive adjective alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Re-checks whether a listing with a verified link can go live, e.g. after the founder confirmed their email. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing the access-token requirement and the precondition of a verified link, and 're-checks' is consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not say what happens when the check fails, whether the call mutates listing state, or what the caller receives, which matters for a non-read-only tool.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The trailing auth note is slightly tacked-on but still earns its place.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the essential calling information is present, but for a mutating gate operation the description leaves the outcome (what a caller learns on success vs. rejection) unstated. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the single productId parameter is fully documented, including where to obtain it (submit_product or list_my_products). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('re-checks whether a listing with a verified link can go live'), which turns the generic name 'publish' into something an agent can act on. It does not name or contrast with siblings such as submit_product or verify_backlink, so a reader must infer the boundary themselves.
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 clause 'e.g. after the founder confirmed their email' hints at the trigger condition, but it is phrased as an example rather than a rule, and it is not stated whether this is required after verify_backlink or whether submit_product already covers it. Usage is implied rather than prescribed, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Launchator's directory of SaaS, AI and indie products by what they do (e.g. 'invoicing for freelancers', 'screen recorder'). Returns the best matches with links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 10 | |
| query | Yes | What the user is looking for | |
| category | No | Limit to one category slug (see list_categories) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are relevance-ranked 'best matches' and include links, but says nothing about result volume behavior, empty-result handling, or pagination (only a cap of 25).
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 compact sentences with the resource, matching basis, and return shape front-loaded. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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 read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to phrase the query. It leaves minor gaps around result count and how to follow up on a returned product (e.g. get_product).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by giving concrete query examples ('invoicing for freelancers', 'screen recorder') that show the expected capability-phrase form rather than a product name. That is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's generic 'What the user is looking for'.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search Launchator's directory of SaaS, AI and indie products') plus the matching basis, which is enough to separate it from get_product or list_categories. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.
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 phrase 'by what they do' implicitly tells the agent to search by capability rather than product name, which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no routing to get_product for a known product or list_categories for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a free Launchator listing for the user's own website. Loads the homepage, screens it, and drafts the listing (takes about 30 seconds). Returns the draft and the next step. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The product's homepage, e.g. https://example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: external homepage fetch, a screening step, an expected ~30 second runtime, and that the call returns a draft plus the next step. This tells the agent both the latency profile and that success may be a draft rather than a published listing — none of which is encoded in readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by runtime, return shape, and auth requirement. No sentence is redundant, and the slow-operation warning arrives before the call is made.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, how long it takes, what comes back, and that auth is required. There is no structured output contract to defer to, and the description fills that gap adequately.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains url as the product homepage with an example. The description only adds the constraint that it must be the user's own site, which is a useful scoping nuance but not syntax or format detail — this is the baseline-3 case.
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?
States a specific action and resource: starting a free listing for the user's own website, with the concrete sub-steps (loads homepage, screens it, drafts the listing). 'Drafts' plus 'returns the next step' implicitly separates it from publish/update_listing siblings, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.
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?
Gives a clear usage condition ('the user's own website') and a prerequisite ('needs an access token'), which is what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. update_listing for an existing listing) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Change the text of the user's listing. Only pass the fields to change. Logos and screenshots are changed in the browser (editInBrowser link). Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| tagline | No | One-line headline, up to 80 characters | |
| category | No | ||
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products | |
| description | No | 50 to 2,500 characters, plain text with line breaks |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and idempotency; the description adds partial-update semantics, an auth prerequisite, and the important limitation that media is not changed here. It does not cover permission scope, publication-state constraints, or error behavior, but the added context is meaningful.
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?
Three compact sentences with no waste: the action is front-loaded, then operational constraints follow. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: partial updates, auth, and the media-editing boundary. It leaves some ambiguity about which listing fields count as text and how this relates to submit_product or publish.
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 descriptions cover productId, tagline, and description, while name, tags, and category rely on schema structure and enums. The description adds the useful partial-update rule ('Only pass the fields to change') but does not explain field meanings or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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?
States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('text of the user's listing'), making clear this edits listing copy rather than creating or publishing. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like submit_product or publish, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Tells the agent to pass only changed fields, notes that logos and screenshots are edited in the browser via the editInBrowser link, and states that an access token is required. These are clear usage conditions and exclusions, but it does not explain when to use this instead of submit_product or publish.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Checks the live homepage for the Launchator link and, if it's there, publishes the listing. Call after the site with the link is deployed. Needs an access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | The productId returned by submit_product or list_my_products |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare mutation, open-world behavior, and idempotency. The description adds useful context beyond them: it checks the live homepage externally, performs a conditional publish only if the link exists, and requires an access token.
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 front-loaded and efficient: it states what is checked, the conditional side effect, the timing, and the auth requirement in three tight clauses with no wasted text.
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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering mutation, open-world access, and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It does not explain the result when the link is absent or describe error/response behavior, but no output schema exists and the core calling context is covered.
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 single `productId` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 states a specific compound action: checking the live homepage for the Launchator link and conditionally publishing the listing. This is clearer than a generic verify tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `publish` tool or explain when the verification path should be preferred.
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?
It gives a clear calling condition: after the site with the link is deployed. It also states the conditional behavior if the link is found. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling `publish` tool or state what to do when verification is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
alternatives_tocheck_ai_readyget_badge_snippetget_my_productget_productlist_categorieslist_my_productspublishsearch_productssubmit_productupdate_listingverify_backlinkA directory of product launch platforms: where your product qualifies and how each form is filled.
Find where to submit your startup. Searches a free list of directories with real submission results.
LaunchOnIt is a weekly launch platform and discovery directory for modern SaaS, developer tools, and AI startups. This MCP server connects AI assistants directly to LaunchOnIt’s live software catalog, rankings, and launch infrastructure. Search launched products, weekly leaderboards and podium winners, check open launch slots, and submit a product launch for review.
Find live startup/SaaS/AI launch directories, with submit URL and free/badge/queue/paid status.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
