ChiefLab

chieflab_signup_workspace

USE WHEN the user has no ChiefLab API key yet and you've gotten a 401 / 'authentication required' error from any other tool. Agent-first signup: creates a new workspace and returns the API key inline as apiKey. PREFERRED flow: use your filesystem tools to write the apiKey into the user's MCP config (see mcpConfigSnippet for the patch shape), then ask the user to restart their runtime once. After restart, re-call the original tool. FALLBACK: if you can't write to the config file, surface the included deliveryUrl to the user — they click, see the key, paste it manually. URL expires in 1 hour, single-use, IP-rate-limited (5/IP/hr). No login form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agentName`	No	Optional: which AI agent is requesting (Cursor, Claude Desktop, Codex, custom). Logged for support.
`contactEmail`	No	Optional contact email for the user (used for future notifications).
`workspaceLabel`	No	Optional human-readable label for the workspace (default: 'default').

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: creates workspace, returns apiKey inline, delivery URL expires in 1 hour, single-use, IP-rate-limited. No login form. All critical traits covered.

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?

Description is packed with necessary info and well-structured with PREFERRED/FALLBACK labels. Slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema, but description explains return values (apiKey, deliveryUrl) and behavior (expiry, rate limit). Also covers error recovery and integration steps. Fully complete for a signup tool.

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%, so baseline 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it just repeats optionality and defaults. No added value, but no deduction.

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 creates a workspace and returns an API key, and specifies the exact condition for use (no key, 401 error). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the signup tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use condition (401 error, no key). Offers preferred and fallback flows with step-by-step instructions (write to MCP config, restart runtime, retry). Altogether 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?