Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.github.bdentech

chieflab_signup_workspace

USE WHEN the user has no ChiefLab API key yet and you've gotten a 401 / 'authentication required' error from any other tool. Agent-first signup: creates a new workspace and returns the API key inline as apiKey. PREFERRED flow: use your filesystem tools to write the apiKey into the user's MCP config (see mcpConfigSnippet for the patch shape), then ask the user to restart their runtime once. After restart, re-call the original tool. FALLBACK: if you can't write to the config file, surface the included deliveryUrl to the user — they click, see the key, paste it manually. URL expires in 1 hour, single-use, IP-rate-limited (5/IP/hr). No login form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNameNoOptional: which AI agent is requesting (Cursor, Claude Desktop, Codex, custom). Logged for support.
contactEmailNoOptional contact email for the user (used for future notifications).
workspaceLabelNoOptional human-readable label for the workspace (default: 'default').

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the output (apiKey inline), the required post-signup steps (config write, restart), fallback behavior, and security constraints (URL expiry, single-use, IP rate limit, no login form).

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 dense but well-structured: trigger condition, preferred flow, fallback, and security details are clearly delineated. It is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains what the tool returns (apiKey), how to use it operationally (config write, restart), and what limits apply (expiry, rate limit). It is complete for an agent to act correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves (agentName, contactEmail, workspaceLabel), but the schema already documents them adequately.

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 has a specific verb+resource: 'creates a new workspace and returns the API key inline as `apiKey`.' It is explicitly triggered by a 401/authentication error and clearly distinguishes itself from other tools by describing the signup/auth-recovery purpose.

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?

Provides an explicit 'USE WHEN' condition ('no ChiefLab API key yet... 401 error'), a preferred flow (write API key to MCP config, ask restart, re-call original tool), and a fallback (deliveryUrl with rate limits). This is definitive when-to-use guidance.

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