Skip to main content
Glama

AfterLaunch: the agentic growth marketing engine

by io.afterlaunch

create_topup

Create a credit top-up checkout link for THIS product run, to refill the credits that pay for metered growth marketing work. Pass pack_id: small, medium or large. Returns a checkout_url the founder opens to pay; the credits land automatically once payment succeeds. Requires the 'act' scope and the Founder plan (on a free trial use create_checkout first). Always bound to your own enrollment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pack_idYesThe refill pack size: small, medium or large. The founder sees the price on the checkout page.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses return value ('Returns a checkout_url'), automatic side effect ('credits land automatically once payment succeeds'), auth requirements ('Requires the 'act' scope'), and a critical context constraint ('Always bound to your own enrollment'). This substantially enriches behavioral understanding.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes: purpose, parameter instruction, return behavior, prerequisite/alternative, and binding constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, return value, alternative usage, and contextual binding. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use 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% coverage for pack_id with an enum and description. The description repeats 'Pass pack_id: small, medium or large' but adds no new meaning about parameter semantics. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameter fully and the description merely echoes it.

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 action: 'Create a credit top-up checkout link for THIS product run,' specifying the resource (credits for metered growth marketing) and distinguishes this tool from create_checkout by framing it as a top-up rather than an initial checkout.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is given: 'Requires the 'act' scope and the Founder plan (on a free trial use create_checkout first).' This names the alternative tool and clarifies eligibility, making the usage context unambiguous.

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

All AfterLaunch: the agentic growth marketing engine 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.

Resources