ChiefLab

chieflab_review_visual_asset

P104 — approve or reject a single visual asset (LinkedIn graphic / X image / landing hero / Product Hunt gallery / carousel slide). USE WHEN a reviewer hits 'Approve' or 'Reject' on a launch image in the Launch Room. Reads the run's stored visualAssets list, updates the matching asset's status (approved | rejected | pending_approval), persists the change to run metadata so future loads + the channel-media render reflect the decision. Companion to chieflab_regenerate_visual_asset (which produces an updated asset shape without persisting).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Launch run id that produced the asset.
`reason`	No	Optional. Why rejected (or why approved). Stored in metadata for audit + future brain memory.
`assetId`	Yes	The visual asset id from launchPack.channels[channel].media[*].assetId.
`decision`	Yes	approve \| reject. Updates the asset's status field.
`workspaceId`	No	Optional workspace id.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes on the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads the stored visualAssets list, updates status, persists to run metadata, and affects future loads and channel-media render. It also contrasts with the non-persisting companion, covering side effects well.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value (statuses, persistence, companion distinction). No fluff.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, persistence, and effects on other systems. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke.

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% with each parameter described. The description does not add extra detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'approve or reject a single visual asset' with specific asset types, and distinguishes itself as a companion to chieflab_regenerate_visual_asset. This is a specific verb+resource that differentiates from siblings.

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?

Explicitly includes 'USE WHEN a reviewer hits Approve or Reject' and names the companion tool as an alternative that produces an updated shape without persisting. Provides clear context for when to use vs. regenerating.

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

A3.8/5.0

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

Need Help?