ChiefLab

chieflab_force_measurement_due

P93 — admin escape hatch. Forces a proof_ledger row's measurement_due_at into the past so the cron's next tick picks it up. USE WHEN smoke testing the launch → measure → next-move chain without waiting 24h, OR an ops user needs to retry a stuck measurement. Gated by CHIEFLAB_ADMIN_TOKEN header (same gate as /api-keys/issue). Refuses if the row is already measured. Pass dueAt (ISO string) to set a specific time; defaults to now - 60s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dueAt`	No	Optional ISO timestamp. Defaults to (now - 60s) so the next cron tick picks it up.
`proofId`	Yes	proof_ledger row id (from chieflab_record_manual_publish or chieflab_execute_approved_action response).
`adminToken`	Yes	Required. Must match CHIEFLAB_ADMIN_TOKEN env var.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

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 authorization requirement (CHIEFLAB_ADMIN_TOKEN), refusal condition (already measured), and default parameter behavior. Missing details on return values or success/failure indicators, but for a force action this is adequate.

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?

Description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then use cases, constraints, and parameter details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description lacks info on return values or error handling. However, it covers prerequisites, authorization, and edge cases (already measured, default time). Minor gap for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and description adds meaning: explains proofId derives from specific sibling tools, adminToken must match env var, optional dueAt defaults to 'now - 60s'. This goes beyond schema annotations.

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 tool forces a measurement_due_at into the past for triggering cron, specifying the verb 'forces' and resource 'proof_ledger row'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by labeling it an 'admin escape hatch' and referencing related tools like chieflab_record_manual_publish.

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?

Explicit usage guidance provided: 'USE WHEN smoke testing the launch → measure → next-move chain without waiting 24h, OR an ops user needs to retry a stuck measurement.' Also states it refuses if row already measured, giving clear when-not-to-use.

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?