ChiefLab

chieflab_approve_action

[chieflab_* alias of chiefmo_approve_action] Approve one ChiefMO publish/send action so its executor can fire. USE WHEN the user — in IDE chat — said 'approve ' (e.g. 'approve linkedin', 'approve hn'), 'approve all', 'ship it', 'go ahead', or otherwise greenlit a specific draft you rendered. Match the user's words to the channel, look up agentGuide.renderInChat[channel].actionId from the launch response, and call this tool with that actionId. This is the IDE-native approval path — no need to push the user to the reviewUrl. Pass actionId (preferred) or id (legacy alias). P74: pass autoExecute: true AND the connector inputs (platforms for social / recipients + subject for email) to have the approval chain directly into execution — approve and ship in one tool call. Without autoExecute (or when connector is manual_handoff / blocked), the response includes executionPlan and the caller is expected to invoke the suggestedTool next.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Legacy alias for actionId.
`subject`	No	P74. For autoExecute on email: subject line override.
`actionId`	No	The action id from publishActions[].id in a launch_product response. Preferred.
`mediaUrls`	No	P74. Optional media URLs for the social post — auto-uploaded to Zernio's CDN before publishing.
`platforms`	No	P74. For autoExecute on social channels: Zernio platform descriptors, e.g. [{platform: 'linkedin', accountId: '<id>'}]. Required when autoExecute=true and mode=oauth_connector.
`recipients`	No	P74. For autoExecute on email: recipient email addresses.
`autoExecute`	No	P74. When true AND the action's executionMatrix.mode is oauth_connector / api_key_connector / native_api AND the connector is ready, the approve handler immediately invokes chieflab_execute_approved_action with the inputs you supply. The response includes the executor result + the unified proof ledger. Defaults to false (preserves the prior contract — agent calls execute_approved_action explicitly).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: alias nature, IDE-native approval path, autoExecute behavior, legacy id alias, and the execution plan fallback. Could be more explicit about side effects (state modification) and permissions, but overall informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense. Every sentence adds value, but structure could be improved with sections or bullet points. P74 markers add necessary versioning context but clutter readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers the functional flow well: getting actionId, calling approve, autoExecute vs manual fallback. However, lacks detailed description of the response structure (no output schema), leaving the agent uncertain about returned fields beyond brief mentions of executionPlan and proof ledger.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description adds significant value beyond schema: explains the context of each parameter, P74 features, and the relationship to launch response. Provides guidance on when each parameter is required (e.g., platforms for autoExecute on social).

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 it is an alias for chiefmo_approve_action and explicitly defines the verb 'approve' and the resource 'ChiefMO publish/send action'. It distinguishes from siblings like chieflab_execute_approved_action by explaining the autoExecute path.

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 specific when-to-use scenarios (e.g., user says 'approve <channel>', 'ship it') and context for looking up actionId. It differentiates between simple approve and autoExecute, but does not explicitly list conditions where this tool should not be used versus alternatives.

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

All ChiefLab tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., approve_action vs execute_approved_action vs publish_approved_post. However, alias overloading (e.g., chieflab_launch_product and chieflab_get_users_after_build pointing to the same handler) introduces some ambiguity. The detailed descriptions mostly mitigate confusion, but an agent might still struggle to choose between near-identical aliases.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools predominantly follow a 'chieflab_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., chieflab_approve_action, chieflab_connect_provider). A few exceptions exist (chieflab_help, chieflab_inbox, chieflab_boot) that are single nouns, but these are clearly distinct and the overall consistency is high.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for an MCP server, but the domain of a growth/marketing launch platform naturally requires many operations (launch, approve, execute, measure, iterate, connect providers, etc.). The count is borderline but still manageable; it doesn't reach the 50+ extreme.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full launch lifecycle: create, approve, execute, measure, and iterate. It includes provider connections, manual fallback, brain summary, and work requests. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for deleting a launch or revoking approval), but core workflows are fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?