LaunchCheck x402
Server Details
Paid x402 MCP tool for stress-testing launch and marketing copy before publication.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct from any hypothetical other tools.
A single tool cannot be inconsistent. The name 'reaction_check' uses a noun_verb pairing that is readable, though not strictly verb_noun; with only one tool, no pattern violations exist.
A single tool feels too thin for a server named 'LaunchCheck' that implies a broader review workflow. While the tool is non-trivial, the count is at the extreme low end for typical server scopes, making it feel under-scoped.
The server offers only one action for launch review, missing companion tools for managing review projects, tracking feedback, or iterating on drafts. The single tool covers many review types but leaves obvious lifecycle gaps.
Available Tools
1 toolreaction_checkAInspect
Review and stress-test launch messaging, landing pages, product announcements, pricing pages, changelogs, app-store listings, and marketing emails before publication. LaunchCheck evaluates copy through eight audience lenses, surfaces positioning and conversion friction, flags claims needing evidence, predicts likely reader questions, recommends concrete changes, and returns a fact-preserving rewrite. Requires $0.50 via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Launch or marketing copy to review before publication, such as a landing page, product announcement, changelog, pricing page, app-store listing, or email. | |
| constraints | No | Optional factual, legal, brand, or wording constraints that the review and rewrite must preserve. | |
| contentType | No | Kind of copy being reviewed; use other when none of the listed categories fit. | other |
| desiredAction | No | Optional action the copy should persuade the reader to take, such as sign up, start a trial, buy, upgrade, or learn more. | |
| idempotencyKey | Yes | Stable key for this logical ReactionCheck request. Reuse it only when retrying the exact same input. | |
| productContext | No | Optional context about the product, feature, offer, or company needed to judge positioning, clarity, and factual fit. | |
| targetAudience | No | Optional intended audience or buyer segment whose likely reaction should inform the review. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evaluation process (eight audience lenses, positioning/conversion friction, claims flagging, question prediction, concrete recommendations, fact-preserving rewrite) and the cost. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but these are less critical for a non-destructive tool. The transparency is above average.
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?
The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates capabilities. Every sentence adds value, though the paragraph could be slightly shortened by removing redundancy (e.g., 'surfaces positioning and conversion friction' is clear). It is well-structured for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
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?
Given 7 parameters, all described in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, outputs (fact-preserving rewrite), and cost. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to call it.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level overview of what content types are accepted and mentions constraints and context, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. For example, 'constraints' schema already describes factual/legal/brand constraints; the description merely paraphrases. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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?
The description specifies the verb 'review and stress-test' and lists concrete resources (launch messaging, landing pages, etc.), making it clear what the tool does. It also details the outputs (surfaces friction, flags claims, predicts questions, recommends changes, returns a rewrite). With no sibling tools, differentiation is moot; the purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool is for pre-publication review and mentions a cost requirement ($0.50 via x402 on Base). It implies usage timing but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given no sibling tools, the omission is minor, but a clearer exclusion (e.g., not for non-marketing copy) would warrant a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityAmaintenanceWallet-funded remote MCP for live Solana priority fees, transaction simulation and diagnosis, token-risk checks, PDF-to-Markdown, and audio normalization. Paid tools use x402 on Solana and Base with no API key.
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server providing Solana/crypto/macro tools (wallet scan, password breach, Jito tip, GitHub health, FRED series, Drift exposure, premium chapters) with x402 payment gating (USDC on Base) for 7 of 8 tools.15MIT
CodexRun Ledger MCPofficial
Flicense-qualityDmaintenancePaid remote MCP for generating trustworthy code run receipts, scope summaries, missing evidence checks, and client handoff exports.