Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Launch Engine

Launch Engine

by ZionHopkins
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

deploy

Read-only

Generate sales pages, email sequences, and ad copy for a market to launch a campaign.

Instructions

Campaign Deployment Engine — generates sales pages, email sequences, and ad copy.

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": {
      "market_name": "<market_name>"
    },
    "name": "deploy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
market_nameYesThe market/pipeline slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'generates' which implies creating new content (a write operation), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool should not modify state. This contradiction misleads the agent about the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the role. However, it lacks necessary detail about how the tool works, what the output is, or how parameters affect behavior. Conciseness is good but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given the single parameter, lack of output schema, and the annotation contradiction, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain how market_name is used, what the generated output looks like, or how to interpret results. The read-only annotation is contradicted, further reducing completeness.

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 only parameter 'market_name' is described in the schema as 'The market/pipeline slug', which is sufficient. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it is a 'Campaign Deployment Engine' that generates sales pages, email sequences, and ad copy. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'content_engine' or 'build_blocks', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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