publish a launch to all configured platforms (queued async)
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": "publish_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?
The "(queued async)" note adds real value beyond the annotations by telling the agent the action is enqueued rather than synchronous, so results are not immediately visible. However, with destructiveHint=true, the description is silent on the irreversible, public-facing consequences of publishing and on how to track job progress, which are exactly the facts an agent needs before firing a destructive call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the asynchronous qualifier is placed where it will be read. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than polished concision.
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 destructive, asynchronous mutation with no output schema, the description omits how to observe completion (e.g., polling launch status), what happens to partially configured platforms, and whether the action can be undone. The async hint is the only behavioral anchor, leaving meaningful gaps for a high-consequence tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single required UUID parameter already documented as "launch ID", so the schema carries the semantics. The description only implies that the launch identified will be broadcast to connected platforms; it adds nothing about ID format or validity beyond the schema.
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?
"publish a launch to all configured platforms" states a specific verb (publish) and resource (launch) plus its scope (all configured platforms). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as retry_launch or create_launch.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to call it. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should be used instead of retry_launch for re-publishing or after approve/finalize steps, leaving the routing decision to inference.
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.