Launch a product on Noonlaunch, search its directory and weekly winners, and find 333 launch sites.
Scored across 10 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly redirect callers between them (e.g. get-plans says to use check_product to actually submit). Two pairs could still be confused at a glance: check-product vs get-product, and search-directory (products) vs list-launch-directories (external directories), though the descriptions resolve both.
Every tool is kebab-case verb_noun (check-status, get-plans, submit-product, verify-badge) with no style mixing. The pattern is predictable and readable throughout.
Ten tools is well within the sweet spot and each one maps to a concrete step or resource in the launch workflow. Nothing appears redundant or padded.
The surface covers the full free-launch lifecycle: eligibility, plans, submission, badge verification, status polling, plus browsing/searches of products and directories. Gaps are minor — there is no way to edit, cancel or withdraw a submission, and no listing of a founder's own submissions beyond a status lookup.
Check whether a product can be submitted to Noonlaunch, and get the plans, categories and launch weeks available for it. Always call this first, and always ask the person for their live public website URL rather than guessing it from their code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website_url | No | The live public URL of the product, as given by the person. Never a localhost or development address. |
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 that this is an aggregate entry-point read that surfaces plans, categories and launch weeks. It does not describe response shape, caching, or what an ineligible product returns, which keeps it short of a 5.
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, zero filler, and the purpose plus the 'call this first' directive are front-loaded before the sourcing caveat. Every clause carries operational information.
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 covers what it does, when to call it, how to obtain the input, and what categories of data come back. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the definition; the description adds real guidance by specifying the URL must come from the person rather than being guessed from their code. It stops short of adding format details beyond the schema's 'never a localhost or development address' note.
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 ('Check whether a product can be submitted to Noonlaunch') and enumerates what the call returns (plans, categories, launch weeks). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-plans or submit-product, which cover only part of that scope.
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?
'Always call this first' gives an explicit ordering constraint relative to the sibling tools, and the second clause tells the agent how to source the input (ask the person for the live URL, don't infer it from code). That is both a when-to-use rule and a when-not behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Where a submission stands: whether it has been claimed, paid for, verified and published. This is the only way to find out whether a payment has landed. Poll it rather than assuming.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission_token | No | The submission_token returned by submit_product. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: it frames the tool as a polling endpoint and as the authoritative source for payment confirmation. It doesn't describe response shape or whether status is eventually consistent, but the polling hint covers the main operational risk.
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, the state enumeration front-loaded, and the actionable polling directive last. Nothing is padded and no sentence merely restates the tool title.
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 helpfully names the four status facets an agent will receive and warns to poll. The only small gap is that it never says the submission_token is required to get an answer.
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 parameter already documents that submission_token comes from submit_product, so the description is not obliged to repeat it. It adds no additional meaning about the token, 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 (a submission's state) and enumerates the exact conditions it reports: claimed, paid, verified, published. It's clear enough to distinguish from check-product, though it doesn't name that sibling or explicitly say it's scoped to product submissions.
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?
'This is the only way to find out whether a payment has landed' and 'Poll it rather than assuming' give explicit when-to-use and how-to-use direction. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the cases this one doesn't cover.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What it costs to launch on Noonlaunch, and what each plan includes. Use this to answer a pricing question on its own. To actually submit a product, call check_product instead: which plans apply depends on the site, because relaunching one that is already listed needs a paid plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, but the description adds useful domain behavior: pricing depends on the site, and relaunching an already-listed product requires a paid plan. It does not describe the return format or currency details, but it provides meaningful context 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 three tight sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives usage guidance, then the sibling-tool alternative. Every sentence 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?
For a read-only, no-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and the sibling escape hatch. It does not describe the shape of the returned plan data, but no output schema exists, so that is a minor omission rather than a blocking 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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is empty.
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 specific resource and content: 'What it costs to launch on Noonlaunch, and what each plan includes.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from check_product, making the scope unmistakable.
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 an explicit use case ('Use this to answer a pricing question on its own') and names the alternative for submission ('call check_product instead'), including the reason plan applicability depends on the site and whether a product is already listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get full public details of one Noonlaunch product by its slug (the last part of its noonlaunch.com/product/... URL).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | The product slug, e.g. "my-product" for noonlaunch.com/product/my-product. |
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 by structured data. The description adds only that the returned details are 'public', which is mild extra context; it says nothing about behavior when the slug is absent or unknown, which is the main runtime surprise for a lookup 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?
A single well-formed sentence with the action and scope front-loaded. The parenthetical URL explanation mildly duplicates the schema's example, so it is efficient rather than maximally tight.
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 is broadly adequate, but it omits what happens on an unknown or missing slug (slug is not marked required in the schema), leaving a real gap in call expectations.
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 slug parameter and its URL-derived example are already fully documented. The description restates the same slug/URL relationship, adding no format, casing, or fallback details beyond the schema.
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 ('Get full public details of one Noonlaunch product') scoped to a single item by slug, which separates it from list/search-style siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like check-product, but 'full public details' versus a bare existence check is reasonably 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 is only implied: 'full public details of one product by its slug' suggests a detail lookup rather than a listing or a check, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check-product or when it is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the Noonlaunch launch board for a week: the top-voted free launches, with the top 3 marked as winners. weeks_ago 0 is the current (still running) week, 1 is the last completed week.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weeks_ago | No | How many weeks back (0 = current running week, 1 = last completed week, default 1, max 52). |
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 genuinely new behavioral context by describing the shape of the result (ranked top-voted free launches, top 3 flagged as winners), which matters because there is no output schema.
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, zero filler, with the resource and the result content front-loaded before the parameter clarification. Every clause 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?
For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result shape, and parameter framing. The one remaining gap is how many launches are returned per board, which an agent might want to know before calling.
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 states the 0/1 meaning, default 1, and max 52. The description restates the 0 and 1 semantics with a slightly clearer framing ('current, still running' vs 'last completed'), which adds marginal value but nothing beyond the schema's own documentation.
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 (Get) and resource (the Noonlaunch launch board for a week), and adds what the payload is: top-voted free launches with the top 3 marked as winners. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling names (check-product, get-plans, submit-product) occupy different domains, so misselection risk is low.
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 weeks_ago 0 vs 1 explanation implies when each value is appropriate (current running week vs last completed week), which is useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative tool for other kinds of launch lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Browse Noonlaunch's curated list of 333 startup launch directories and communities where founders can submit a product. Filterable by category, cost and minimum domain authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 50). | |
| min_da | No | Minimum domain authority (0-100). | |
| category | No | Filter by directory category, e.g. "AI", "SaaS", "General". | |
| free_only | No | Only directories that are free to submit to. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the curated 333-entry scope and community context, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, auth needs, or return shape.
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 with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the filtering details. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
The description is adequate for a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and clear safety annotations. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about the returned directory fields, but the core behavior is clear enough to invoke correctly.
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 parameters are already well documented. The description names category, cost, and minimum domain authority as filters, but mostly restates the schema and does not mention the limit parameter or add syntax beyond the schema.
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 and resource: browsing Noonlaunch's curated list of 333 startup launch directories/communities. It adds useful scope with the count and submission context, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling search-directory tool.
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 implied by saying founders can browse directories where they can submit a product, and the filters suggest discovery use. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search-directory or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Report that the badge check is wrong: the badge is installed and visible but we cannot find it. Only use this after verify_badge has failed twice and you have confirmed the badge really is live on the page. A person reviews it within 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Where the badge is on the page and what you have already checked, so a human can resolve it without asking. 20-1500 characters. | |
| submission_token | No | The submission_token returned by submit_product. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the mechanical flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds the genuinely non-obvious behavior that a human reviews the report within 24 hours, setting an async expectation the agent would otherwise lack. It stops short of saying what the call returns immediately (e.g., a ticket id or acknowledgement), leaving a modest 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 failure condition, then the precondition, then the turnaround expectation. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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 two-parameter, fully documented schema with no output schema, the description covers the decision context (verify_badge twice), the diagnostic content expected, and the human-review SLA. The only missing piece is what the tool returns synchronously, which matters slightly more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 both parameters (message, submission_token) already carry their own guidance including the 20-1500 character range and the source of the token. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?
Names a specific verb ('report') and specific resource ('badge check is wrong'), and immediately scopes it: 'the badge is installed and visible but we cannot find it.' That framing makes it unmistakably distinct from verify-badge and check-status, which are the siblings it could otherwise be confused with.
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 an explicit gating condition — 'Only use this after verify_badge has failed twice and you have confirmed the badge really is live on the page' — which both names the alternative tool and states when it must not be used. This is exactly the when/when-not structure that prevents premature escalation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the Noonlaunch product directory. Returns approved products matching the query, ordered by community votes, with links to their Noonlaunch product pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | No | Search term matched against product names, taglines and descriptions. | |
| category | No | Optional category slug or name to narrow results. |
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 useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are limited to approved products, ordered by community votes, and include links to product pages.
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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and return behavior are front-loaded.
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 read-only search tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough return-value context: approved products, ordered by votes, with product-page links. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.
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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that searching is query-based but does not add syntax, matching rules, or other parameter meaning 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: searching the Noonlaunch product directory. It also clarifies what results are returned and how they are ordered. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get-product, check-product, or list-launch-directories.
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 implies that it is used for searching, but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get-product or list-launch-directories. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a product to Noonlaunch. Nothing is published by this call. It returns a claim link to give the person straight away, and for free launches the badge snippet to install. Call check_product first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Product name, 2-100 characters. | |
| plan | No | One of: free, bundle_featured, bundle_spotlight. Ask the person which they want. | |
| tagline | No | One line shown on the board, 10-70 characters. | |
| category | No | Category id or slug from check_product. | |
| logo_url | No | Optional public URL of the product logo image, which we download. | |
| description | No | What the product does, 30-600 characters. Longer text is rejected, not trimmed. | |
| launch_week | No | Optional launch week as a Monday date (YYYY-MM-DD) from check_product. Defaults to the next open week. | |
| website_url | No | The live public URL the person confirmed. Never guess this from the codebase. | |
| twitter_handle | No | Optional X handle, with or without the @. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — nothing is published, a claim link is returned for immediate handoff, and free launches also yield a badge snippet. It leaves the return contract for paid tiers implicit, so not a 5.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the non-publication caveat, then the return value, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.
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 and nine parameters, the description does the important work of disclosing the return payload (claim link and badge snippet) and the sequencing requirement. It stops short of explaining outcomes for the two bundle plans or what errors look like, which keeps it off a 5.
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 all nine parameters (including the plan enum values and the 'never guess' website_url rule) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a faint hint about plan tiers via 'for free launches'; 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a product to Noonlaunch') and immediately qualifies what the call actually does ('Nothing is published by this call'). No sibling tool competes for this action, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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 an explicit ordering prerequisite: 'Call check_product first', which names a real sibling and links two calls. It does not cover when-not-to-use cases (e.g. duplicate product already claimed), so it stops short of the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check that the Noonlaunch badge is installed on the product site and publish the listing if it is. Only for free launches, and only after the person has deployed the change. Paid listings are published by payment instead, so use check_status for those.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission_token | No | The submission_token returned by submit_product. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it publishes the listing only if the badge is installed, and only for free launches after deployment, though it does not describe failure or return behavior.
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 short and front-loaded: the main action comes first, followed by the critical eligibility conditions and the alternative tool for paid listings. Every sentence carries operational value.
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, conditional mutation tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not state what is returned or what happens when the badge is not found.
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 single submission_token parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it comes from submit_product. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: check the Noonlaunch badge on the product site and publish the listing if present. It also distinguishes the free-launch path from the paid path and names check_status as the paid alternative.
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 conditions are explicit: only for free launches, only after the person has deployed the change, and paid listings should use check_status instead. This leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke or avoid the tool.
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.
check-productcheck-statusget-plansget-productget-weekly-winnerslist-launch-directoriesreport-badge-problemsearch-directorysubmit-productverify-badgeSearch a launch directory of new products, and submit and publish your own listing.
Search new software launches, read product pages, find alternatives and see daily upvote rankings.
A directory of product launch platforms: where your product qualifies and how each form is filled.
Search uneed.best's curated product directory: launches, rankings, deals and alternatives
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
