Skip to main content
Glama

ChiefLab

by io.github.bdentech

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, and it does. It states the tool returns paste-ready content, checklist, measurement template, and optional upgradePath; that it converts a blocked channel into a human-in-the-loop ship; and crucially that the originating publishAction must be 'approved' before the brief is returned. This gives the agent a clear picture of prerequisites and outcomes.

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 longer than the ideal but every sentence carries substantive guidance. The 'USE WHEN' front-loading immediately sets context, and the later detailed return list is justified because no output schema exists. It is structured and dense rather than redundant, though it could be tightened slightly.

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, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, triggering conditions, channel distinctions, returns, prerequisite approval, and the relationship to provider setup. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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, but the description enriches parameters meaningfully. It explains actionId as coming from chiefmo_launch_product, specifies how to identify fetchable actions via blockedActions[] or manualFallback fields, and clarifies subreddit/discordCommunity tailoring. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter labels.

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 opens with 'USE WHEN any launch action carries a manualFallback brief' and clearly defines the tool as fetching a fallback brief for blocked launch channels. It distinguishes the tool by detailing the exact conditions (manual-only channels vs. unwired automated providers) and the concrete deliverables returned, so it is unambiguous and differentiated 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit and context-rich usage guidance: when to use (any action with a manualFallback brief), what type of channels qualify, and the pattern of using the fallback now while connecting the provider later. It lacks an explicit 'do not use' statement or named sibling-tool alternative, so it falls short of a 5 but is far beyond minimal 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