Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.chieflab.api

chieflab_continue_launch_loop

[chieflab_* alias of chiefmo_continue_launch_loop] Resume a ChiefLab launch loop from runId. USE WHEN an agent has already called chieflab_get_users_after_build / chiefmo_launch_product and needs the exact next action: surface reviewUrl, execute an approved action, wait for measurement, measure results, or prepare the next move. Default response is summary-sized: reviewUrl + action ids, not full draft bodies. Pass responseShape:"full" only for debug/export.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runIdYesThe launchId/runId returned by chieflab_get_users_after_build or chiefmo_launch_product.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id. Hosted auth usually supplies this.
responseShapeNosummary (default, small — returns reviewUrl + openApprovalIds without draft bodies) | full (inline full approval objects; large, debug/export only).
includeFullArtifactsNoAlias for responseShape:"full". Use only for debug/export.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that the default response is summary-sized and that 'full' is for debug/export, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, what authentication is needed, or any rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph. It front-loads the main action, then provides usage conditions, default behavior, and a caution. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions that the response includes 'reviewUrl + action ids' but does not detail the full response structure or potential errors. For a tool that can surface multiple action types, more completeness would help the agent handle outcomes.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying the usage of 'runId' (links to previous tools), the optional nature of 'workspaceId', and the distinction between 'responseShape' and 'includeFullArtifacts' with a caution about the latter. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Resume', the resource 'ChiefLab launch loop', and the identifier 'runId'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chieflab_launch_product and chieflab_get_users_after_build by specifying it is for continuing an existing loop, not starting one.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE WHEN' and lists the preceding tools, giving clear context. It also provides guidance on when to use the default 'summary' vs 'full' response, which helps the agent make correct decisions.

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

All ChiefLab toolsInspect
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