ChiefLab

chieflab_retry_blocked_action

P13 — re-check a blocked publishAction's connector readiness. Returns whether the channel is now ready (so the agent can re-fire chiefmo_publish_approved_post / chiefmo_send_approved_email) or still blocked with the up-to-date connect path. USE WHEN the user has just connected a missing provider and the agent needs to know if the action can fire.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actionId`	Yes	The blocked publishAction.id from chiefmo_launch_product.
`workspaceId`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns whether the channel is ready or still blocked with the up-to-date connect path, implying a non-destructive check. However, it doesn't mention if there are any side effects or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 two sentences plus a usage note, front-loading the purpose and return value. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple check tool with 2 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and return behavior. It lacks explicit output schema details but names sibling actions for follow-up. The workspaceId parameter is not addressed, which is a minor gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema covers 50% of parameters (only actionId has description). The tool description adds meaning to actionId via the example 'from chiefmo_launch_product' but does not explain workspaceId at all. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 the tool re-checks a blocked publishAction's connector readiness, with specific verb 're-check' and resource 'blocked publishAction'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the related publish/send actions that follow, making its role unique.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'USE WHEN the user has just connected a missing provider and the agent needs to know if the action can fire.' It also indicates what to do after (re-fire chiefmo_publish_approved_post or chiefmo_send_approved_email), providing clear 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?