Skip to main content
Glama

AfterLaunch: the agentic growth marketing engine

skip_move

Dismiss a growth move (Skip in the Feed). Free; requires the 'act' scope. Optional feedback_key (closed vocabulary, see the enum) plus a free-text feedback_note explain why, which improves future marketing drafts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
move_idYesMove id (uuid), from list_feed.
feedback_keyNoWhy it was dismissed. Closed vocabulary; unknown keys are ignored by the learning loop.
feedback_noteNoOptional free-text detail alongside feedback_key.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'act scope' requirement and notes that feedback improves future marketing drafts, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds value by explaining the learning loop effect.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action. It includes only essential information without fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple skip action, the description covers the operation, cost, required scope, and feedback effect. It does not mention return value or reversibility (undo is implied via sibling), but this is not critical for basic invocation given the provided annotations and schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in detail (move_id, feedback_key enum, feedback_note maxLength). The description only restates the purpose of feedback_key/note, adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Dismiss' and the resource 'growth move', with a clarifying parenthetical '(Skip in the Feed)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like archive_move and undo_move.

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 useful context such as 'Free' and 'requires the act scope', but does not explicitly mention when alternatives like archive_move or undo_move should be used. The sibling names make the distinction fairly clear, but no direct exclusions are given.

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
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.