crew_list_launchesRetrieve launches tied to your crew key, including mint, ticker, fee lock, and pump URL. Use after a launch or to recover mint state across retries.
Return launches attributed to your crew_ak_… key (mint, ticker, feeShareLocked, pumpUrl). Operator env keys see recent board launches. Use after crew_launch or to recover mint state across retries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the returned payload depends on the calling key type (crew_ak_ vs operator env keys seeing recent board launches). It does not disclose default result count or ordering, which is the remaining gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, how scope varies by key, and when to call it. The verb and resource are front-loaded with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the inline enumeration of returned fields is genuinely useful, and the key-type scope distinction fills an important gap. Only the limit parameter's behavior is left unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (limit, bounded 1-100) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so default value and ordering semantics are undocumented in both places. With a low coverage single param, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Return launches attributed to your crew_ak_… key') and names the returned fields (mint, ticker, feeShareLocked, pumpUrl). It also distinguishes two returned scopes (crew key vs operator env keys), so an agent can tell how it differs from crew_launch and from other crew_* reads.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly gives the trigger: 'Use after crew_launch or to recover mint state across retries.' This tells the agent when to reach for it rather than crew_status. It stops short of any when-not or naming an alternative read tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.