@launchlint/mcp

Start local app check

start_workspace_scan

Upload your prepared workspace snapshot to LaunchLint to start a scan. Confirmation is required and consumes one app check.

Instructions

Upload the previously prepared workspace snapshot directly to LaunchLint. Requires explicit confirmation and consumes one app check.

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": {
      "confirmationToken": "<confirmationToken>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "start_workspace_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appName`	No
`confirm`	Yes
`platforms`	No
`projectKey`	No
`confirmationToken`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations lack destructiveHint and idempotentHint detail, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it consumes a resource ('app check') and requires explicit confirmation (confirm=true). This goes beyond 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?

One sentence, 16 words, with the verb 'Upload' first. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, and the description omits return value (e.g., scan ID, status). It also fails to mention that the snapshot must be prepared via sibling 'prepare_workspace_scan', leaving a gap in workflow understanding.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the 5 parameters. The existence of 'confirmationToken' and 'confirm' is only hinted at by 'requires explicit confirmation', leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from schema constraints alone.

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 clearly states the action (upload snapshot), the target system (LaunchLint), and key constraints (requires confirmation, consumes one app check). It distinguishes this from sibling 'prepare_workspace_scan' by implying it follows preparation.

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 the tool is used after preparing a snapshot but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server