Skip to main content
Glama

AfterLaunch: the agentic growth marketing engine

by io.afterlaunch

get_move

Read-only

One growth move in full: everything needed to write its deliverable yourself. The drafted body and draft_kind (a full draft, or a brief to expand), the evidence it was minted from and when it was observed, the deliverable identity, why it was picked, the stored scan evidence behind its measured claim (receipt), the acceptance criteria and writing constraints, and the founder's voice samples. tracked_link rides when one exists; this door reports one, never mints one. Read it before writing any move, then ship_move once the founder is happy. Read-only, free. It carries posture and posture_reason (who may do it: act, draft_only or founder_voice) and agent_instructions, the directive you follow in the same reply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
move_idYesMove id (uuid), from list_feed or get_standup.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: it is 'Read-only, free,' it 'never mints one,' and it details what the response will carry (draft body, evidence, receipt, acceptance criteria, posture, agent_instructions) including the values of posture_reason. No statement contradicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The main purpose and usage hint are front-loaded, and almost every clause adds useful detail. However, the second sentence is a long comma-driven enumeration and 'this door' is an odd typo, so the structure is denser than it needs to be.

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 well by listing the returned fields, explaining draft_kind and posture_reason, and stating the follow-up action. It is slightly less complete as a spec because it doesn't give an exact response shape or explain edge cases, but an agent has enough to invoke and use the result.

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 fully describes the sole move_id parameter, including its source via 'from list_feed or get_standup,' so the description carries no extra parameter-level semantics. Per the high schema coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'One growth move in full' and enumerates the complete contents of the move, making clear this is a single-record retrieval. It also contrasts itself with ship_move, saying it 'reports one, never mints one,' which distinguishes it from publication/write siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: 'Read it before writing any move, then ship_move once the founder is happy.' It also states a when-not via 'never mints one' and that tracked_link is reported only when one exists, guiding an agent away from using this tool to create or mint.

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