LaunchCheck x402
Server Details
Paid x402 MCP tool for stress-testing launch and marketing copy before publication.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolreaction_checkAInspect
Review and stress-test launch messaging, landing pages, product announcements, pricing pages, changelogs, app-store listings, and marketing emails before publication. LaunchCheck evaluates copy through eight audience lenses, surfaces positioning and conversion friction, flags claims needing evidence, predicts likely reader questions, recommends concrete changes, and returns a fact-preserving rewrite. Requires $0.50 via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Launch or marketing copy to review before publication, such as a landing page, product announcement, changelog, pricing page, app-store listing, or email. | |
| constraints | No | Optional factual, legal, brand, or wording constraints that the review and rewrite must preserve. | |
| contentType | No | Kind of copy being reviewed; use other when none of the listed categories fit. | other |
| desiredAction | No | Optional action the copy should persuade the reader to take, such as sign up, start a trial, buy, upgrade, or learn more. | |
| idempotencyKey | Yes | Stable key for this logical ReactionCheck request. Reuse it only when retrying the exact same input. | |
| productContext | No | Optional context about the product, feature, offer, or company needed to judge positioning, clarity, and factual fit. | |
| targetAudience | No | Optional intended audience or buyer segment whose likely reaction should inform the review. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the evaluation process (eight audience lenses, positioning/conversion friction, claims flagging, question prediction, concrete recommendations, fact-preserving rewrite) and the cost. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but these are less critical for a non-destructive tool. The transparency is above average.
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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates capabilities. Every sentence adds value, though the paragraph could be slightly shortened by removing redundancy (e.g., 'surfaces positioning and conversion friction' is clear). It is well-structured for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
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?
Given 7 parameters, all described in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, outputs (fact-preserving rewrite), and cost. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to call it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level overview of what content types are accepted and mentions constraints and context, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. For example, 'constraints' schema already describes factual/legal/brand constraints; the description merely paraphrases. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 specifies the verb 'review and stress-test' and lists concrete resources (launch messaging, landing pages, etc.), making it clear what the tool does. It also details the outputs (surfaces friction, flags claims, predicts questions, recommends changes, returns a rewrite). With no sibling tools, differentiation is moot; the purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly states the tool is for pre-publication review and mentions a cost requirement ($0.50 via x402 on Base). It implies usage timing but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given no sibling tools, the omission is minor, but a clearer exclusion (e.g., not for non-marketing copy) would warrant a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
reaction_check
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Paid x402 tools for merchant intelligence, Base payment readiness, and verifiable web evidence.
Paid remote MCP for synthetic user testing, UX validation, analytics, checkout, and readiness.
Paid pre-execution risk verification for AI agents over MCP and x402.
37 paid x402 MCP tools for OSINT, prediction markets, web intel, and agent security on Base USDC.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenancePaid MCP server that evaluates typography accessibility beyond what axe and Lighthouse catch. $0.05 USDC per evaluation via x402 on Base mainnet.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceWallet-funded remote MCP for live Solana priority fees, transaction simulation and diagnosis, token-risk checks, PDF-to-Markdown, and audio normalization. Paid tools use x402 on Solana and Base with no API key.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server providing Solana/crypto/macro tools (wallet scan, password breach, Jito tip, GitHub health, FRED series, Drift exposure, premium chapters) with x402 payment gating (USDC on Base) for 7 of 8 tools.15MIT

CodexRun Ledger MCPofficial
FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenancePaid remote MCP for generating trustworthy code run receipts, scope summaries, missing evidence checks, and client handoff exports.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct from any hypothetical other tools.
A single tool cannot be inconsistent. The name 'reaction_check' uses a noun_verb pairing that is readable, though not strictly verb_noun; with only one tool, no pattern violations exist.
A single tool feels too thin for a server named 'LaunchCheck' that implies a broader review workflow. While the tool is non-trivial, the count is at the extreme low end for typical server scopes, making it feel under-scoped.
The server offers only one action for launch review, missing companion tools for managing review projects, tracking feedback, or iterating on drafts. The single tool covers many review types but leaves obvious lifecycle gaps.