Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.github.bdentech

chieflab_search_capabilities

USE WHEN your operator needs a capability outside its own scope and wants to find another operator that can fulfill it — 'find me a demo-video capability', 'who can do SEO audits', 'search for design help'. Returns active capability records ranked by recency. Pair with chieflab_create_work_request to actually request bounded work from the chosen operator. The discovery embryo for an agent-native marketplace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTag overlap filter (e.g. ['video', 'demo']).
limitNoMax results. Default 25.
capabilityNoCapability slug to match (exact match — e.g. 'demo_video').

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are active and ranked by recency, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication, or error behavior. The description gives some helpful behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with a clear 'USE WHEN' statement and includes useful examples. The last sentence 'The discovery embryo...' is metaphorical and adds little practical value, but overall the description is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use, what it returns, and a complementary tool. It could be more complete by describing result fields, but the combination of description and schema is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds examples of typical queries but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 it searches for capabilities outside an operator's scope and returns active capability records ranked by recency. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on capability discovery and providing example queries. The verb 'search' is implied by the tool name and reinforced by the usage scenario.

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' guidance is provided with concrete examples, and it pairs with chieflab_create_work_request for the follow-up workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like chieflab_get_capability or chieflab_list_specialists.

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

A3.8/5.0
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