AfterLaunch

run_loop

SPENDS MONEY: trigger one on-demand generation run of a growth marketing loop (e.g. linkedin_post for distribution, geo_improvement for AI visibility and GEO, competitor_intel for competitors). Costs 1 credit. Needs the 'write' scope and an idempotency_key you mint. Bounded by the per-tenant daily and monthly caps. Charged and limited to ONE run per loop per cycle; a repeat in the same cycle replays at no cost, regardless of the key. Accepts only runnable, provisioned loop types (see get_loop_status).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`loop_type`	Yes	The growth loop to run, e.g. linkedin_post, geo_improvement or competitor_intel.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Client-minted key (1-200 chars). Reuse the same key on a retry.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: cost (1 credit), spend warning, required scope, per-tenant daily/monthly caps, and idempotent replay behavior within the same cycle. These are not derivable from the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provide essential operational context.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: cost, action, examples, scope, caps, idempotency, and restrictions. The 'SPENDS MONEY' opener effectively front-loads the most important warning.

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?

With only 2 params and no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational knowledge: cost, authorization, rate limits, idempotency, and valid input types. References get_loop_status for further context, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples for loop_type and clarifying idempotency_key semantics (mint a key, replay regardless of key within cycle), exceeding the schema's basic explanations.

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 triggers an on-demand generation run of a growth marketing loop, with specific examples (linkedin_post, geo_improvement, competitor_intel). It distinguishes itself from sibling get/set tools by emphasizing the action of running a loop.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: on-demand runs, with prerequisites ('Needs the write scope', 'Accepts only runnable, provisioned loop types' referencing get_loop_status). It also explains idempotency and caps, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like scheduled cadence tools.

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

All AfterLaunch 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and descriptions are thorough. A few pairs (e.g., ship_move vs set_output_status, dismiss_gap vs skip_move) overlap on the dismissal concept but operate on different surfaces, so an agent can usually tell them apart with careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_move, create_checkout, untrack_prompt). Retrieval tools consistently use get_ for single items and list_ for collections, and action verbs are precise, so the naming is fully predictable.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is heavy by any standard, exceeding the 25+ threshold in the calibration. While each tool may earn its place given the breadth of the domain, the sheer number will overwhelm an agent and complicate tool selection.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycles well: moves (list/get/ship/skip/archive/undo/update), outputs (list/get/ship/redraft), connections (list/start/poll/disconnect), prompts (track/untrack/list), and scans (refresh/get/set intensity). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct edit for KB pages, but record_insight partially fills that.

Resources

Need Help?