Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

productplan-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

list_launches

Read-only

Fetch product launches with optional filters for name, status, or date range to view release schedules and track progress.

Instructions

List all launches. START HERE for launches.

USE WHEN: "Show launches", "Release schedule", "Launches this quarter" Optional server-side filters: name_contains (case-insensitive), status (exact), launch_after/launch_before (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive); sort ("launch_date asc"). Returns array of launches with ID, name, launch_date, status, and progress. FAILS WHEN: API token invalid; a date is not YYYY-MM-DD; sort names a field outside the allowed list (the error lists them). Returns empty list if no launches exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort as "field" or "field asc|desc" (server-side). Fields: id, name, description, launch_date, status, user_id
statusNoOnly launches with this status, exact match (server-side)
launch_afterNoOnly launches on or after this date, YYYY-MM-DD (server-side)
launch_beforeNoOnly launches on or before this date, YYYY-MM-DD (server-side)
name_containsNoOnly launches whose name contains this text (case-insensitive, server-side)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim
summaryYesHuman-readable summary of the result (e.g. "Found 3 roadmaps")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv6.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "launch_after": {
+    "description": "Only launches on or after this date, YYYY-MM-DD (server-side)",
+    "examples": [
+      "2026-01-01"
+    ],
+    "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "launch_before": {
+    "description": "Only launches on or before this date, YYYY-MM-DD (server-side)",
+    "examples": [
+      "2026-01-01"
+    ],
+    "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "name_contains": {
+    "description": "Only launches whose name contains this text (case-insensitive, server-side)",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "sort": {
+    "description": "Sort as \"field\" or \"field asc|desc\" (server-side). Fields: id, name, description, launch_date, status, user_id",
+    "examples": [
+      "name asc"
+    ],
+    "pattern": "^(id|name|description|launch_date|status|user_id)( (asc|desc))?$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "status": {
+    "description": "Only launches with this status, exact match (server-side)",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Human-readable summary of the result (e.g. \"Found 3 roadmaps\")",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "summary",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv5.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable failure conditions (invalid token, date format, sort field) and explicitly states the empty-list behavior. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying error handling and return expectations. It doesn't cover rate limits or pagination, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then filter details, then return shape, then failure cases. Every sentence serves a distinct function, and there is no redundant or filler content. The formatting (caps, line breaks) aids readability. This is a model of concise, complete documentation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (5 optional params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, filters, return fields, and failure modes. It doesn't mention pagination or result limits, which could be relevant for a 'list all' operation, but this is not explicitly required and may not apply. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description summarizes filters (name_contains, status, dates, sort) but doesn't add information beyond what the schema already specifies. The mention of 'inclusive' for dates mirrors the schema's 'on or after' phrasing. Thus, the description adds no net semantic value over the schema, aligning with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 'List all launches' with a specific verb and resource. It adds 'START HERE for launches' to indicate it's the primary entry point, distinguishing it from get_launch (singular) and manage_launch (modification). This is a strong purpose statement with clear sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit USE WHEN examples ('Show launches', 'Release schedule', 'Launches this quarter') and marks it as the starting point. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context and sibling names make it clear that get_launch is for single records and manage_launch for writes. The guidance is strong but could be enhanced with explicit exclusions.

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