Skip to main content
Glama

chieflab_execute_approved_action

P71 — closed-loop executor wrapper. USE WHEN chiefmo_approve_action just succeeded on an action whose executionMatrix.mode is oauth_connector or api_key_connector AND connectorReady is true. Routes to the right native executor (chiefmo_publish_approved_post for social / chiefmo_send_approved_email for email), runs the execute-time sanity gate (re-classifies the action's stored body to catch DEGRADED MODE / clarification / refusal text that slipped through draft-time classification), captures the executor's result, writes a standardized metadata.proof shape ({executedAt, artifactUrl, artifactId, executionStatus, failureReason, measurementDueAt}) on the action, and schedules the 24h followup via launchFollowupStore so chiefmo_post_launch_review fires automatically. Returns a uniform shape regardless of channel so the agent / Launch Room doesn't have to branch on connector type. For manual_handoff actions, returns guidance to call chieflab_record_manual_publish with the live URL instead. For blocked actions, returns the connector-wiring instruction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectNoFor email sends: subject line override. Defaults to the action's stored subject when present.
actionIdYesThe publishAction.id whose executionMatrix you want to execute. The action must be in status='approved' (call chiefmo_approve_action first).
mediaUrlsNoOptional media URLs (image / video) for social posts. Zernio uploads them to its CDN before posting.
platformsNoFor oauth_connector (social): Zernio platform descriptors, e.g. [{platform: 'linkedin', accountId: '<id>'}]. Required for social posts unless the workspace has a default mapping; the tool refuses with reason='platforms_required' otherwise.
recipientsNoFor api_key_connector (email): recipient email addresses. Required for email sends unless the action carries a stored recipient list.
workspaceIdNoOptional workspace id.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses routing logic, execute-time sanity gate, metadata.proof shape, followup scheduling, uniform return shape, and manual/blocked behavior. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the purpose and USE WHEN condition. Despite length, every clause provides distinct value—no filler.

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?

Very complete for a complex tool: return shape, post-execution hook, manual/blocked handling. The incorrect 'chiefmo_' tool references in the narrative create minor completeness gaps, but the behavioral model is otherwise well-covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all six parameters clearly. The description adds little param-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only references actionId and mode indirectly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a closed-loop executor wrapper that routes to native executors and writes metadata.proof, distinguishing it from direct executors. However, it incorrectly references 'chiefmo_publish_approved_post' and 'chiefmo_send_approved_email' while sibling tools are named 'chieflab_*', which could mislead tool selection.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions with mode/connectorReady criteria, and explains manual_handoff/blocked branches with alternatives. Deducted because 'chiefmo_approve_action' is referenced instead of the actual sibling 'chieflab_approve_action', creating potential confusion about the prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple launch and measurement tools), and the presence of aliases like chiefmo_* can confuse an agent. While descriptions are detailed, the sheer number of tools covering similar workflow steps makes it hard to distinguish the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

All public tools start with 'chieflab_' and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., chieflab_approve_action, chieflab_set_company_profile). However, some internal names like 'chiefmo_*' appear as aliases, which slightly breaks consistency from the user's perspective.

Tool Count1/5

45 tools is excessive for a single MCP server. While the domain is broad, this many tools likely overwhelms agents and users. Most well-scoped servers have 3-15 tools; 45 indicates poor scoping and should be split into focused sub-servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extremely comprehensive, covering the full lifecycle from signup and installation to launch, approval, execution, measurement, next-move suggestions, manual fallback, and specialist delegation. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of growth and distribution.

Resources