ChiefLab

chieflab_mark_action_done

P135 — mark a next-move action as completed when the founder has done the move BUT there's no URL to record (e.g. reply_to_commenters, dm_engagers, mark replies done). Flips the action to executed with metadata.markedManuallyAt + metadata.executedManually=true. The next-move card disappears from /command/'s Today's Loop. For moves that DO have a URL (cross-post, new post), use chieflab_record_manual_publish instead — it both records the URL and marks executed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional founder note about what was done. Stored in metadata.markedManuallyNote for the brain to read later.
`actionId`	Yes	The next-move action id.
`workspaceId`	No	Optional workspace id.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the action flips to executed with metadata fields markedManuallyAt and executedManually=true, and the card disappears from Today's Loop. It does not mention irreversibility or permissions, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. 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?

Three parameters, no output schema. The description explains the outcome (action executed, card disappears) and provides context for note parameter. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% description coverage. The description adds context beyond schema: explains that the note is stored in metadata.markedManuallyNote for the brain to read later. This adds value.

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 explicitly states the tool marks a next-move action as completed when there's no URL. It uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('next-move action'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 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?

The description provides clear when-to-use (when there's no URL to record, e.g., reply_to_commenters) and when-not-to-use (for moves with a URL, use chieflab_record_manual_publish). It explicitly names the alternative.

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?