Skip to main content
Glama

launches

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Launch

get_launch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details for a specific launch by ID. Returns name, time, status, pad, rocket, mission, orbit info, video links, and mission patches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLaunch Library 2 launch UUID (e.g. "a6ce038e-4d89-4265-b47f-1c6ee5863f84")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLaunch Library 2 launch UUID
netNoLaunch date/time (ISO 8601)
nameYesLaunch name
imageNoLaunch image URL
orbitNoTarget orbit name
statusNoLaunch status name
locationNoLaunch location/facility name
pad_nameNoLaunch pad name
programsNoAssociated space programs
video_urlsNoRelated video URLs
infographicNoMission infographic URL
rocket_nameNoRocket full name or configuration name
mission_nameNoMission name
mission_typeNoMission type classification
orbit_abbrevNoTarget orbit abbreviation
webcast_liveNoWhether webcast is available
rocket_familyNoRocket family designation
location_countryNoLaunch location country code
status_descriptionNoDetailed status description
mission_descriptionNoMission objectives and details

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (name, time, status, pad, etc.), providing useful context beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and lists return fields in a compact single sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers purpose and return content, while annotations cover safety. The output schema handles detailed return values. It is adequately complete, though it could mention error handling or not-found cases, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the id parameter, including a type, description, and example. The tool description merely references 'by ID' without adding extra semantic detail, so the schema already carries the meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'launch' and clearly states it retrieves details by ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_past_launches and search_launches, which focus on lists or queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for looking up a specific launch by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_launches or get_past_launches. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All launches toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform data retrieval, with beta currently identical to stable. The polymarket_* family and bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both handle discovery. Despite detailed descriptions, agents are likely to misselect among these overlapping options.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some start with verbs (get_launch, search_launches, ask_pipeworx), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and there are versioned suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta). While each domain group has internal consistency, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'launches'—only 4 tools (get_launch, get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches, search_launches) actually relate to space launches. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets, company profiles, and memory, making the count inappropriate and diluting the server's focus.

Completeness2/5

For the claimed launch domain, the set provides only basic list/detail/search operations and lacks useful launch features like filtering by agency, date range, or launch site. More critically, the inclusion of 31 unrelated tools creates a fragmented surface with obvious dead ends—an agent expecting a launch-focused server would find most tools irrelevant.

Resources