Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.chieflab.api

chieflab_status

SESSION-RECOVERY · FIRST CALL when a session starts and the user mentions launch / users / growth / customers / metrics / revenue / marketing / what next / shipping. Returns a command-center bootCard with headline, priority, cards[] (each carries kind + label + literal user command + runHandle), and next (the one-line prompt). Aggregates: pending approvals + ripe measurements + new engagement + queued prospects + recent launches + manual-publish-pending actions. ChiefLab is stateful and re-summonable — even if the conversation was lost, the IDE was switched, or the runId was forgotten, this call recovers the workspace business state. If the user asked to launch the CURRENT repo, compare boot cards to currentRepoContext/projectName; if the open loop is unrelated, start a fresh launch instead of resuming stale work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNameNoOptional current project/repo name.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id.
currentRepoContextNoOptional current repo/project context. Helps agents compare recovered loops against the project the user is asking about.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it recovers workspace state, is stateful and re-summonable, aggregates multiple data sources, and explains return structure and logic for comparing against current context.

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?

Single paragraph with key info upfront. Informative but could be broken into shorter sentences or bullet points for easier scanning. Still efficient with no superfluous words.

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?

Complete for a session recovery tool: explains purpose, when to use, output structure, parameter usage, and stateful nature. No output schema, but description compensates with detail. Handles edge cases like lost conversation.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how to use currentRepoContext/projectName to compare recovered loops, and implies workspaceId usage, going beyond 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'SESSION-RECOVERY · FIRST CALL when a session starts...' and details what it returns (bootCard with specific fields). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as the initial session recovery call.

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?

Clear when to use: 'FIRST CALL when a session starts and the user mentions launch / users / growth / ...' and when not: 'if the open loop is unrelated, start a fresh launch instead of resuming stale work.' Provides context for parameter usage.

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