Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.chieflab.api

chieflab_search_capabilities

USE WHEN your operator needs a capability outside its own scope and wants to find another operator that can fulfill it — 'find me a demo-video capability', 'who can do SEO audits', 'search for design help'. Returns active capability records ranked by recency. Pair with chieflab_create_work_request to actually request bounded work from the chosen operator. The discovery embryo for an agent-native marketplace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTag overlap filter (e.g. ['video', 'demo']).
limitNoMax results. Default 25.
capabilityNoCapability slug to match (exact match — e.g. 'demo_video').

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns active capability records ranked by recency, but omits details such as read-only nature, any side effects, or pagination. This is adequate but could be more thorough.

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 extremely concise: a single paragraph of about 50 words. It front-loads the usage context with 'USE WHEN' and provides examples and pairing advice. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description mentions returns but does not specify fields or behavior when no parameters are provided. With 100% schema coverage and no required params, it is minimally complete but lacks details on default output or paging.

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%, and the schema descriptions already explain each parameter (tags as overlap filter, limit with default 25, capability as exact match). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating these, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for capabilities when an operator lacks one. It gives concrete examples and mentions returning active capabilities ranked by recency. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like chieflab_list_specialists, so clarity is high but not perfect.

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 starts with 'USE WHEN' and specifies the context: when an operator needs a capability outside its scope. It also recommends pairing with chieflab_create_work_request for further action. No explicit exclusions are provided, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All ChiefLab toolsInspect
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