Skip to main content
Glama

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Message Experiments

get_message_experiments
Read-only

Each test carries versions A and B with their template text, sent / replied / interested / meetings counts, and a verdict: too_early until each version has 30 sends, then the leader with its probability of scoring higher on the test's metric — leading, or wins at 95%. A send step's metric is replied. A connection request's is accepted, with an accepted count per version; there an empty version text is a request sent with no note, and recent requests haven't all been answered yet, so the version accepted faster reads a little ahead early on. Relay that probability plainly, and say "too early" when it is; at current volumes a test takes weeks. "Replied" counts any reply on that channel after the send, including replies to later steps. The tests (experiments), newest first, as {experiments: [{node_id, node_label, metric, started_at, ended_at (null while running), ended_by, versions: [{label, template_id, text, sent, replied, interested, meetings, accepted (connection requests only)}], verdict}]}, where ended_by says how a past test ended — keep_a / keep_b when that version went on alone, edit_a / edit_b when that version was edited (which restarts the test), edit otherwise — and is null while it runs; across every agent each also carries agent_id, agent_title and owner_email. The experiment at experiment_index also carries each version's messages (newest first: {prospect_id, prospect_name, person, sent_at, text, outcome}), filtered to outcome and paged 50 at a time from offset, with messages_total. A past test that sent nothing is left out, so an empty experiments means no test in that scope is running or ever sent a message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoWhere the page of messages starts.
node_idNoA send or connection-request step's node id, to scope to that step. Needs `agent_id`.
outcomeNoOnly messages whose prospect reached this outcome (meeting counts as interested and replied; interested counts as replied; on a connection request, replied counts as accepted). None = every sent message.
agent_idNoID of the agent (campaign) to scope to. Omit for every agent.
on_behalf_ofNoA teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.
experiment_indexNoWhich experiment's messages to include, 0 = newest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"Read a consented teammate's tests instead of your own — pass their email.\nGated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."New value: +"A teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / as_teammate
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Read a consented teammate's tests instead of your own — pass their email.\nGated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting. Omit for your own."
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Read a consented teammate's tests instead of your own — pass their email.\nGated on that teammate's conversation-sharing setting. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / outcome / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "accepted",
-      "replied",
-      "interested",
-      "meeting"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "description": "An outreach outcome a prospect can reach.",
+    "enum": [
+      "accepted",
+      "replied",
+      "interested",
+      "meeting"
+    ],
+    "title": "Measure",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / node_id / description
      Previous value: -"A send step's node id, to scope to that step. Needs `agent_id`."New value: +"A send or connection-request step's node id, to scope to that step. Needs\n`agent_id`."
    • changedInput schema / properties / outcome / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "replied",
-      "interested",
-      "meeting"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "accepted",
+      "replied",
+      "interested",
+      "meeting"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / outcome / description
      Previous value: -"Only messages whose prospect reached this outcome (meeting counts as interested\nand replied; interested counts as replied). None = every sent message."New value: +"Only messages whose prospect reached this outcome (meeting counts as interested\nand replied; interested counts as replied; on a connection request, replied counts as\naccepted). None = every sent message."
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses substantial behavior: verdict semantics (too_early until 30 sends, then leader with probability, wins at 95%), metric differences (replied vs accepted), the connection-request caveat about faster-accepted versions reading ahead early on, and how empty results should be interpreted. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 summary/returns structure is front-loaded and each section is purposeful, but the prose is dense and long, with some detail (e.g. the extended 'replied' definition) that could be tightened. Overall efficient for the amount of behavioral nuance conveyed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full return-shape burden — and it does, spelling out the experiments array, version fields, ended_by values, the messages sub-array with paging, and the empty-result meaning. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains how agent_id and node_id combine to define scope, how experiment_index selects which test's messages appear, and the paging/outcome-filter relationship. It goes beyond restating the schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — reading A/B tests of flow-step messages and connection-request notes — and immediately contrasts with the alternatives by describing the scoping modes (one step, one agent, or every agent). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_node_history or query_analytics without opening a schema.

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 names concrete triggering questions ('which version is winning', 'how did the last test go') and explains how to scope the call, which gives clear context for when to reach for it. However, it never names a competing tool or states an explicit when-not condition, so routing is implied rather than directed.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources