Launch status
launch_statusRead-onlyIdempotent
Reports the current launch status of YK Blueprint.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
YK Blueprint
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds only the 'current' aspect, which suggests a snapshot but does not elaborate on return format or side effects. This is acceptable but not rich.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and simple behavior.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and annotations cover the behavioral constraints.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description and schema are aligned and nothing more is needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'Reports' and clearly identifies the resource 'current launch status of YK Blueprint'. It precisely conveys the tool's function, and since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.
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?
The description clearly implies the tool is used when you need the current launch status. There are no alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a simple status-check tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose of 'launch_status' is clearly described as reporting the current launch status.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool name 'launch_status' is clear and follows a readable compound pattern. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.
Tool Count1/5
The server has exactly one tool, which is a trivial single operation. This is an extreme under-scoping for a server named 'YK Blueprint', which implies a broader purpose.
Completeness1/5
The tool surface consists solely of a launch status report. There are no creation, modification, or deletion operations, making the server severely incomplete for any plausible blueprint management or status monitoring workflow.