get detailed posting status with per-platform logs
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_status"
}
}| 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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response includes per-platform logs, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about log volume, pagination, or what happens for platforms with no posts.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier "detailed ... per-platform logs" comes early. It is efficient but so terse that it reads more like a label than a definition.
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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials but leaves the return shape underspecified beyond "per-platform logs." An agent knows what it gets at a high level but not how the status data is structured.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("launch ID", uuid format), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further meaning about the id, so the baseline of 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 detailed posting status") plus the distinguishing payload, "per-platform logs." That separates it from generic siblings like get_launch, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase "detailed posting status" suggests coming here when you need per-platform granularity rather than overall launch metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as get_launch or get_launch_analytics.
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.