Skip to main content
Glama

AfterLaunch: the agentic growth marketing engine

by io.afterlaunch

get_standup

Read-only

The daily growth marketing standup in one call: what recently shipped and what AfterLaunch verified about it (receipts), the top ranked moves shippable now (ready; rank is the full-board position, so gaps mean those ranks are not shippable now), what the engine did on its own in the last 7 days (while_you_were_gone; capped at the account's age), and whether the deep scan is still running. Call this at the START of a session, before list_feed, and relay the message field. Read-only, free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuances: results are capped by account age, rank gaps mean not shippable now, and the deep-scan status is included. The description is consistent with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then clearly enumerates the return sections with parenthetical clarifications. No sentence or phrase is wasted.

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 no output schema and no params, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it explains what to do with the result, what each part means, and important behavioral constraints. This is sufficiently complete for safe tool selection and invocation.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately compensates by thoroughly describing the contents and meaning of the response, which is the real value an agent needs.

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 identifies this as the daily marketing standup summary and enumerates the exact content returned: shipped items, verified receipts, actionable ranks, engine actions, and deep-scan status. It also positions it relative to list_feed, distinguishing it as the session-start call.

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 guidance: call at the START of a session, before list_feed, and relay the message field. This is clear context, though it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name a direct alternative tool.

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