get a launch by ID with posting status per platform
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_launch"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | launch ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations, namely that results include per-platform posting status, which matters since there is no output schema. It still says nothing about behavior for a missing or invalid ID.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with zero filler, front-loading both the operation and the most decision-relevant piece of return information. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it hints at the return payload yet does not characterize a not-found response or confirm the full result shape. Adding a clause on behavior when the ID does not resolve would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a UUID launch ID. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes that without adding format, sourcing, or lookup-failure semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('get a launch by ID') and adds what the response contains ('posting status per platform'), which an agent can use to distinguish this from list-style or analytics siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as get_launch_status or get_launch_analytics, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over get_launch_status, get_launch_analytics, or get_batch_launch_analytics. The 'by ID' phrasing only implies a single-record lookup; the agent must infer the selection rule from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.