LaunchNotes MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies that at least one color field must be provided, that unspecified fields remain unchanged, and details error handling for invalid hex colors and non-existent projects. While annotations cover basic safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description enriches this with practical constraints and failure modes.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Use Cases, Error Handling) and front-loaded purpose statement. While comprehensive, some sections like the detailed parameter list could be more concise, but overall it efficiently communicates necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains the update operation, documents all parameters, specifies constraints, shows use cases, and outlines error handling. The main gap is lack of detail about the return format beyond 'confirmation message,' but given the annotations and context, it's reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (though the schema shows empty properties), the description compensates by fully documenting all 11 parameters with names, types, optionality, and hex format requirements. However, it doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what a well-documented schema would provide, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as updating color palette and theme for a LaunchNotes project, specifying the resource (project colors) and action (update). It distinguishes from sibling tools like launchnotes_update_project_content and launchnotes_update_project_features by focusing specifically on colors rather than content, features, or other project aspects.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool through explicit use cases like changing primary colors, updating brand colors, setting text colors, and updating color themes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different update needs.

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