Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@launchlint/mcp

@launchlint/mcp

by TheWinters12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

get_fix_task

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a fix task for a specific finding in a LaunchLint scan. Get automated code correction suggestions to resolve security or quality issues.

Instructions

Use the authenticated LaunchLint cloud tool get_fix_task.

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": {
      "scanId": "<scanId>",
      "findingId": "<findingId>"
    },
    "name": "get_fix_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localeNoen
scanIdYes
findingIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what data is returned or any prerequisites.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. The single sentence is not informative and reads as under-specification rather than efficient communication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools (list_findings, prepare_workspace_scan, etc.), the description is wholly inadequate. It leaves the agent without a clear understanding of when or how to invoke it.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description does not clarify that scanId is a UUID for the scan, findingId identifies the finding, or that locale is optional for language. No value added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is tautological: 'Use the authenticated LaunchLint cloud tool get_fix_task' merely repeats the tool name without specifying that it retrieves a fix task for a given finding. It fails to distinguish from siblings like list_findings or get_project_status.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not indicate that it should be called after listing findings or that it provides details for a specific finding.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools