Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.chieflab.api

chieflab_use_manual_fallback

USE WHEN any launch action carries a manualFallback brief — either because the channel has no automated provider at all (Product Hunt, Hacker News, Reddit, Discord, Slack, Indie Hackers, dev.to, YC Bookface, blog) OR because the channel HAS an automated provider but its connector isn't wired yet for this workspace (LinkedIn / X without a Zernio key; email without a Resend key + verified sender domain). Pattern: use the inline fallback NOW to ship the launch manually; connect the provider LATER (each fallback returns an upgradePath with the exact connector wiring) so the same action publishes automatically on the next launch. Returns: paste-ready title + body, per-channel checklist (best time, format, first-comment script), capture-URL-after instruction, measurement template for the 24h readback, and the optional upgradePath when automation is available. Converts a 'blocked' channel into a 5-minute human-in-the-loop ship. Approval-gated upstream: the originating publishAction must already be 'approved' on the reviewUrl before this tool returns the brief.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoOverride the channel inferred from the action. One of: linkedin | x | email | blog | landing_hero | product_hunt | hacker_news | reddit | discord | slack | indie_hackers | dev_to | ycombinator.
actionIdYesThe publishAction.id from chiefmo_launch_product whose manualFallback you want to fetch. Works for both manual-only channels (connector === 'manual_only') and otherwise-automated channels whose connector isn't wired (connector === 'zernio' or 'resend' with no key). Look at agentGuide.blockedActions[] or publishActions[].manualFallback in the launch response — any action where manualFallback is non-null is fetchable here.
subredditNoOptional. For channel=reddit, which subreddit (e.g. 'r/SaaS', 'r/AI_Agents'). ChiefLab's brief picks the right post format per sub.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id.
discordCommunityNoOptional. For channel=discord, which community (the brief tailors tone + announcement-channel pick).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 key behavioral traits: the tool returns paste-ready title+body, a checklist, measurement template, and optional upgradePath. It also states the prerequisite that the originating publishAction must already be approved on the reviewUrl. This transparency helps the agent understand side effects and requirements.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it front-loads the most important information ('USE WHEN...'). Every sentence adds value, though breaking it into bullet points or short sentences would improve readability. No extraneous content, but structure could be optimized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, multiple return components), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the approval prerequisite, and how it fits into the broader workflow (ties to chiefmo_launch_product and chieflab_connect_provider). No gaps are evident.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it explains the origin of actionId from chiefmo_launch_product, lists channel options, and describes how subreddit and discordCommunity affect the brief. However, the description could be slightly more concise for each parameter.

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's purpose: to use a manual fallback when a launch action has a manualFallback brief. It specifies exactly when to use it (manual-only channels or automated channels without wired connectors) and distinguishes it from other tools like connecting a provider later. The verb 'use' and resource 'manual fallback brief' are specific.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE WHEN any launch action carries a manualFallback brief...' It details both scenarios (no automated provider or connector not wired), mentions the upgradePath for later automation, and notes the approval gate requirement. This helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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