create-starter

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_launch_proof_report

Run combined release, CD, security, and instructions audits to generate a client-ready Markdown launch proof report; optionally write it to disk.

Instructions

Run audit_release, audit_cd, audit_security, and audit_instructions together, then return a client-ready Markdown Launch Proof Report. Read-only by default; set write=true to write launch-proof-report.md or output_path inside the target repo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Path to the repo to audit (default: the MCP server's cwd). Use the absolute path of the project the user is working in.
`write`	No	Write the Markdown report to disk. Default false.
`output_path`	No	Report file path. Relative paths are resolved inside the target repo. Ignored unless write=true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gates`	Yes
`overall`	Yes
`blockers`	Yes
`markdown`	Yes
`repoPath`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`outputPath`	Yes
`generatedAt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.3Sep 12, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / outputPath / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / outputPath / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedv0.4.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the default read-only behavior and the mutation side effect of writing to disk when write=true, plus where the file lands. Lacks detail on permissions, error handling, or whether the individual audits still run when write=true, but the core safety/mutation profile is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the write behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the composition, the read-only default, and the write destination. No annotations to compensate for, and all 3 parameters are schema-documented. Complete for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents path, write, and output_path fully. The description reinforces the write/output_path relationship (write=true writes to the repo) but adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (run/generate) and resource (Launch Proof Report), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the four audit tools it composes (audit_release, audit_cd, audit_security, audit_instructions). An agent can tell this is an aggregate/report tool versus the individual audit tools.

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?

Explains composition (runs the four audits together) and the write toggle condition, giving clear context for use. Does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only one audit dimension is needed), but the 'together' framing implies the aggregate use case.

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

Deploy Server