Skip to main content
Glama

TrustyCap

by com.trustycap

Get a TrustyCap Launch Kit

trustycap_get_launch_kit
Read-onlyIdempotent

The full starting point for one Launch Kit: the step-by-step workflow with the capability each step calls, which steps stop for a human, what one unit of the builder's business costs at list price, the production checklist, and the customization contract. Read this before writing or changing code against a kit. The contract classifies every surface as customizable, extensible, required, platform_managed or protected, so you can transform the kit into a materially different product (new name, brand, audience, pricing, screens, workflow, capability mix) without touching the authorization, metering, proof or payment-authority boundaries that make the result trustworthy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLaunch Kit id, e.g. vehicle-finance

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what the returned artifact includes and how the customization contract classifies surfaces, which helps the agent understand the scope and safe boundaries without repeating annotation data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but purposeful, front-loading the main deliverable and contents in the first sentence. The later sentences justify why the tool should be read before code changes and explain the contract's role, so each sentence earns its place despite the length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned components: workflow, capability calls, human stops, cost, checklist, and contract. It also explains the purpose and trust boundaries, giving an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with an example value ('vehicle-finance'), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the tool targets a single Launch Kit, but it does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'the full starting point for one Launch Kit' and enumerates its contents: workflow, capabilities, human stops, cost, checklist, and customization contract. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like trustycap_list_launch_kits by emphasizing 'one Launch Kit' rather than a collection.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage context: 'Read this before writing or changing code against a kit.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the implied contrast with listing kits or native kits.

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

All TrustyCap toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or decision point—capabilities, launch kits, native kits, and production readiness—but trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness can both respond to a human asking what to build, and guide overlaps somewhat with the list_* tools in matching outcomes. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so the set is largely clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a trustycap_<verb>_<noun> pattern, such as list_capabilities, get_launch_kit, and list_native_kits. trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness break that convention with a bare verb and a noun phrase, but the shared prefix and snake_case style keep the naming mostly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a reference and decisioning server covering three resource families plus guidance. Each tool has a clear purpose, and there are no redundant entries.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers listing and retrieving Launch Kits and Native Kits, enumerating capabilities, guided matching, and production-readiness evaluation. Minor gaps exist—such as no separate capability-detail tool and no tool to execute or install a kit—but those seem outside the server's informational scope.

Resources