VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

signup

Idempotent

Redeem a private-beta code and create an account. No API key needed.

    Standard codes are single-use with ten product requests. Owner codes are reusable
    and unlimited. Signup retains 500 credits as a compatibility balance, while
    customer pricing is zero during beta. An exact idempotent replay returns the same
    account and same derived API key without a second redemption.
    Errors: beta_access_denied, invalid_request, idempotency_conflict, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Display name for the account, 1-100 chars. Purely a label (it is never checked for uniqueness); defaults to 'agent'.	agent
`email`	No	OPTIONAL contact address. Never required, never verified, and never used to authenticate; the api_key is the only credential.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Required replay key for beta signup. Reuse it only for exact retries.
`beta_access_code`	Yes	Private-beta invite code: exactly eight ASCII digits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docs`	No	Where to read more, keyed by topic.
`note`	No	Human-readable summary of the above.
`tier`	No	owner (unlimited) or standard (ten product requests).
`api_key`	No	The API key. An exact signup replay recovers the same derived value without storing the plaintext in SQLite.
`credits`	No	Compatibility balance: 500 for a fresh beta account. Beta operations do not spend it.
`replayed`	No	true when this response replays an earlier signup with the same code and idempotency_key; false on a fresh redemption.
`unlimited`	No	true only for the owner tier.
`account_id`	No	Your account id. Not a credential.
`created_at`	No	Account creation time, ISO-8601 UTC.
`next_steps`	No	Ordered suggestions for what to call next.
`memory_card`	No	A compact block worth persisting into your own memory.
`request_limit`	No	10 for standard; null for owner.
`requests_used`	No	Product requests admitted so far.
`api_key_prefix`	No	First 12 chars of the key, safe to log and to pass to revoke_key.
`requests_remaining`	No	Remaining product requests; null for owner.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the idempotentHint annotation: standard codes are single-use with ten product requests, owner codes are reusable/unlimited, signup retains 500 credits as a compatibility balance, and exact idempotent replays return the same account/key. It also lists specific error codes, adding substantial value over the annotation.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence is a clear action statement, followed by concise behavioral notes on codes, credits, and errors. It is not bloated, though it packs multiple pieces of information in a dense but readable way.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, code behavior, idempotency semantics, and error cases. It gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly without missing critical information.

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 detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not introduce new parameter-level details; it only reinforces idempotency behavior. Therefore the 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 opens with 'Redeem a private-beta code and create an account,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. Among the sibling tools, only this one handles signup, so it is clearly distinguished from all others.

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?

It gives clear context by noting 'No API key needed' and describing the two code types and idempotent replay behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use the tool (when you have a beta code).

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

All VHGENGINE 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?