Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Idea Launch

by io.idea-launch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare an Ad Run (dry run)

idealaunch_prepare_ad_run
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an idea is ready to test, and preview what would run.

This creates nothing and spends nothing. It reports every launch gate with a specific fix, and — when the account has an Ad Run credit — previews the platform that would be chosen, why, the market, and the inferred audience. Starting the run is confirmed in the Idea Launch app; there is no tool that can charge the account.

Returns: { ideaId, readiness: [{ key, label, ready, fix }], readyToLaunch, availableAdRunCredits, canStartAdRun, plan, launchUrl, note }.

The platform and audience preview costs paid inference, so it is only produced when a credit is available. Readiness checks are always returned.

Tool call template

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": {
      "ideaId": "<ideaId>"
    },
    "name": "idealaunch_prepare_ad_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideaIdYes
response_formatNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by stating explicitly that nothing is created or charged, that the paid-inference platform/audience preview is gated on credit availability, and that readiness checks are always returned regardless. This is exactly the cost/side-effect context annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the key safety claim, then the conditional-preview rule, then the return shape. The literal field list is dense but useful; a small amount of redundancy between the readiness sentence and the returns block could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields and the conditional nature of the preview versus the always-present readiness results, which is the main behavioral surprise. The one omission is any guidance on the required ideaId input.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions ideaId or the markdown/json response_format enum, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare schema. It implies the tool operates on a single idea but does not document the required identifier or the format option.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — check readiness gates for an idea and preview what would run — and immediately frames it as a dry run that creates and spends nothing, which cleanly separates it from run-creation and get/list siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the usage context well: use this to validate readiness before launching, and note that actual starting happens in the Idea Launch app rather than through any tool. It doesn't name a specific sibling for inspecting an already-started run (e.g. get_ad_run), so there is a small gap, but the when-to-use boundary is clear.

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

All Idea Launch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources