@launchlint/mcp

list_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

List findings from a LaunchLint scan. Filter by domain or severity to pinpoint issues.

Instructions

Use the authenticated LaunchLint cloud tool list_findings.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`scanId`	Yes
`severity`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, handling safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'authenticated', which is implied. No additional traits (e.g., pagination, filtering behavior) are disclosed.

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?

The description is one sentence but is a tautology that wastes space. It is brief but uninformative, not earning its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description should explain return values or behavior. It provides none, making it wholly incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but fails to do so. It does not mention scanId, domain, or severity, leaving their meaning and usage entirely undocumented.

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?

The description is a tautology: it simply repeats the tool name and adds 'authenticated LaunchLint cloud tool', failing to state what the tool does (e.g., 'list findings from a scan'). No verb or resource is specified beyond the name itself, making it misleading.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_projects and get_project_status exist, but the description provides no differentiation or context for appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server