ChiefLab

chieflab_set_provider_key

Store a provider API key for THIS workspace. Once stored, ChiefLab uses your key (BYOK — you pay the provider directly, no markup). Without it, ChiefLab uses its own key and bills through with a margin. Providers: gemini (image gen), resend (email), zernio (social publish), anthropic (LLM, future), openai (LLM, future). Stored encrypted at rest. Use chieflab_revoke_provider_key to remove. The key never leaves this workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	Yes	The provider API key (e.g. for Gemini: a Google API key starting with AIza...).
`provider`	Yes	gemini \| resend \| zernio \| anthropic \| openai
`workspaceId`	No	Optional workspace id (defaults to your bearer's workspace).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that keys are stored encrypted at rest and never leave the workspace. It also clarifies the financial implication (direct payment vs margin). The description does not mention whether storing overwrites an existing key, but overall it provides good behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 four efficient sentences with no fluff: action, benefit, provider list, security and removal. Every sentence adds unique value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (encryption, workspace scope, removal alternative). It does not explicitly state return values or success confirmation, but for a simple store operation this is arguably sufficient. Slightly more detail on expected outcomes would make it a 5.

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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by listing all providers with examples (e.g., Gemini key starting with AIza), explaining optional workspaceId default behavior, and providing context (BYOK benefit) that clarifies why to use optional fields. This goes beyond the schema.

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 stores a provider API key for the workspace, distinguishes between BYOK (no markup) and ChiefLab's key (with margin), and explicitly names sibling tool 'chieflab_revoke_provider_key' for removal. The verb 'store' and resource 'provider key' are specific and unambiguous, differentiating it from other chieflab 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 explains when to use this tool (to bring your own key and avoid markup) and lists supported providers. It implicitly describes the alternative (using ChiefLab's key without this tool). More explicit exclusions or context-specific guidance would push to 5, but it is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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?