Skip to main content
Glama

chieflab_execute_approved_action

P71 — closed-loop executor wrapper. USE WHEN chiefmo_approve_action just succeeded on an action whose executionMatrix.mode is oauth_connector or api_key_connector AND connectorReady is true. Routes to the right native executor (chiefmo_publish_approved_post for social / chiefmo_send_approved_email for email), runs the execute-time sanity gate (re-classifies the action's stored body to catch DEGRADED MODE / clarification / refusal text that slipped through draft-time classification), captures the executor's result, writes a standardized metadata.proof shape ({executedAt, artifactUrl, artifactId, executionStatus, failureReason, measurementDueAt}) on the action, and schedules the 24h followup via launchFollowupStore so chiefmo_post_launch_review fires automatically. Returns a uniform shape regardless of channel so the agent / Launch Room doesn't have to branch on connector type. For manual_handoff actions, returns guidance to call chieflab_record_manual_publish with the live URL instead. For blocked actions, returns the connector-wiring instruction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectNoFor email sends: subject line override. Defaults to the action's stored subject when present.
actionIdYesThe publishAction.id whose executionMatrix you want to execute. The action must be in status='approved' (call chiefmo_approve_action first).
mediaUrlsNoOptional media URLs (image / video) for social posts. Zernio uploads them to its CDN before posting.
platformsNoFor oauth_connector (social): Zernio platform descriptors, e.g. [{platform: 'linkedin', accountId: '<id>'}]. Required for social posts unless the workspace has a default mapping; the tool refuses with reason='platforms_required' otherwise.
recipientsNoFor api_key_connector (email): recipient email addresses. Required for email sends unless the action carries a stored recipient list.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses routing behavior, sanity gate execution, result capture, proof writing, and followup scheduling. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers most side effects, though it could explicitly mention whether the operation is irreversible or if it modifies the action's status.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with 'P71 — closed-loop executor wrapper' and structured logically (purpose, conditions, internal steps, special cases). It is verbose but each sentence adds necessary detail for an AI agent; no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, missing annotations), the description is comprehensive. It explains the workflow, routing, sanity gate, proof writing, followup, and edge cases for manual_handoff and blocked actions. It could be improved by describing the return shape more explicitly, but overall it is very complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining when parameters are required (e.g., platforms required for social unless default mapping, recipients for email unless stored) and that mediaUrls are uploaded to CDN. However, the schema descriptions already provide good detail, so the added meaning is moderate.

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 a closed-loop executor wrapper for approved actions, routing to specific executors (chiefmo_publish_approved_post for social, chiefmo_send_approved_email for email) and distinguishing from manual_handoff and blocked actions. It precisely identifies the verb (execute) and resource (approved action) with scope (oauth_connector or api_key_connector modes).

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 when to use: 'USE WHEN chiefmo_approve_action just succeeded on an action whose executionMatrix.mode is oauth_connector or api_key_connector AND connectorReady is true.' Provides alternatives for manual_handoff (chieflab_record_manual_publish) and blocked actions (connector-wiring instruction).

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

Try in Browser

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