ChiefLab

chieflab_publish_approved_post

[chieflab_* alias of chiefmo_publish_approved_post] Publish an approved social post (LinkedIn / X / Threads / Instagram / Facebook / Bluesky / TikTok) through the social publishing rail (current adapter: zernio). USE WHEN the user has approved a publishAction from chiefmo_launch_product on the reviewUrl and you need to fire the post. Strict approval gate: returns { reason: 'requires_approval', reviewUrl } if the action isn't approved yet. Once executed, returns the live platform post URL. Money/external-system action — never call this without an approved actionId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The final rendered post text (your LLM rendered this from the brief in the launch pack).
`actionId`	Yes	The publishAction.id from chiefmo_launch_product. Required.
`mediaUrls`	No	Optional. Image/video URLs (or base64 data URLs from launch graphics).
`platforms`	Yes	Which platforms + Zernio accountIds to publish to. Get accountIds from chieflab_list_publish_accounts.
`scheduleAt`	No	Optional ISO 8601. Schedule for later instead of immediate.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully describes behavior: a strict approval gate that returns an error if not approved, and on success returns the live platform URL. It also mentions the underlying adapter (zernio) and that it's a money/external-system action. No missing critical details.

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 dense but well-structured. It starts with the alias, then the purpose, then usage condition, approval gate behavior, and a warning. Every sentence provides useful information. It's not overly long but covers key points efficiently.

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 explains both success return (live URL) and error return (reason and reviewUrl). It covers the 5 parameters, approval flow, and safety warnings. Could mention rate limits or idempotency, but overall is complete for a publish tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it explains 'content' is the final rendered text from the LLM, and tells where to get accountIds (chieflab_list_publish_accounts). This helps the agent understand parameter origins.

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 publishes approved social posts to a specific set of platforms (LinkedIn, X, etc.) and includes an alias note clarifying this is a renamed tool. The verb 'Publish' and resource 'social post' are specific, and the list of platforms distinguishes it from other publish tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'USE WHEN the user has approved a publishAction from chiefmo_launch_product' and warns 'never call this without an approved actionId'. While it doesn't name alternative tools for when the action is not approved, the condition is very clear. The warning about money/external-system action provides strong guidance.

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?