ChiefLab

chieflab_check_measurement_due

P71 — measurement queue inspector. USE WHEN the agent wants to know which executed actions are ready for their 24h readback (regardless of how they were executed — native connector OR manual paste). Lists actions where metadata.proof.measurementDueAt <= now AND metadata.proof.measuredAt is unset. Returns: [{actionId, runId, channel, executedAt, measurementDueAt, artifactUrl, executionStatus, recommendedNextTool}]. Pairs with chiefmo_post_launch_review which the cron also calls automatically; this tool surfaces the same queue to a foreground agent so it can opportunistically pull metrics during a session instead of waiting for the next cron tick.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runId`	No	Optional. Restrict to one run.
`workspaceId`	No	Optional workspace id.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses the filtering conditions (measurementDueAt <= now and measuredAt unset) and the returned fields. No annotations exist, and the description provides complete behavioral context for a read-only query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the usage directive, and includes return fields and pairing. Every sentence adds value 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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields and filtering criteria. It covers pairing and use case, making it fully complete for a query tool with optional parameters.

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?

Both parameters are optional and described in the schema (coverage 100%). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only stating they are optional filters. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'measurement queue inspector' to list actions ready for 24h readback. It differentiates from siblings by specifying it works regardless of execution method and pairs with chiefmo_post_launch_review.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'USE WHEN the agent wants to know which executed actions are ready for their 24h readback' and contrasts with the cron-triggered tool, providing clear guidance on when to use this foreground tool vs waiting.

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?