ChiefLab

chieflab_send_approved_email

[chieflab_* alias of chiefmo_send_approved_email] Send an approved launch email through the email sending rail (current adapter: resend). USE WHEN the user has approved an email publishAction from chiefmo_launch_product and you need to fire the send. Strict approval gate (same shape as chiefmo_publish_approved_post). from MUST be on a domain verified at the adapter (resend.com) — check chieflab_list_email_senders first. Single recipient or short list (≤50). Money/external-system action — once sent cannot be unsent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient(s). Single email or array (≤50).
`from`	Yes	Sender. Must be a verified Resend domain address (e.g. 'Brand <hi@yourdomain.com>').
`html`	No	HTML body (preferred for inboxing).
`text`	No	Plain-text fallback (recommended).
`replyTo`	No	Optional reply-to address(es).
`subject`	Yes
`actionId`	No	The publishAction.id from chiefmo_launch_product. Required for the approval gate to fire.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is irreversible ('once sent cannot be unsent') and involves money/external-system, and mentions the adapter and domain verification. However, it lacks details on failure modes or confirmation steps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently packs alias clarification, usage condition, prerequisites, and behavioral note into a single paragraph without unnecessary verbiage.

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 the tool's external and irreversible nature, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage condition, prerequisites, and a critical behavioral warning. It references a sibling for shape, which adds completeness. Minor gap in error handling details.

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 high (86%). The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing the domain verification requirement for `from` and the recipient limit for `to`, which are not fully captured in the schema descriptions.

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 'Send an approved launch email' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like chieflab_publish_approved_post by noting it is for email send actions after approval from chiefmo_launch_product.

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 an email publishAction from chiefmo_launch_product' and provides prerequisites like domain verification and checking chieflab_list_email_senders. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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?