TestMyVibes

Assemble a multi-segment demo video (hands-off)

assemble_demo_video

Stitches video clips + voiceover narration into a single MP4 published to Spaces. Each segment is one of: (a) videoUrl + narrationText (voiceover replaces video's audio track), (b) narrationText only (generates a brand-color title card sized to narration length), (c) videoUrl + audioUrl (drops in a pre-baked audio track). Returns a 24h signed URL to the final MP4. Use this for marketplace catalog submissions, tutorial videos, or any time you'd otherwise screen-record + iMovie by hand. Charged on success only; failed runs are free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`segments`	Yes	Ordered segment list. Concatenated in order. Max 12 segments / ~3 minutes total for the catalog use-case.
`publishAs`	No	Optional. When set, ALSO writes the final MP4 to a stable Spaces path at demo-videos/promoted/<publishAs>.mp4 so a public page (e.g. /ai/demo.mp4) can keep embedding the same URL forever. Re-running with the same publishAs key overwrites. Common values: "ai-landing" (powers /ai page), "anthropic-submission" (catalog submission).
`outputAspect`	No	16:9 for desktop / YouTube, 9:16 for mobile / TikTok / Shorts, 1:1 for square social.	16:9

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	Tool result payload (JSON object)

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that publishAs overwrites existing files, that the tool is charged on success only, and returns a 24h signed URL. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first defines functionality and output, second lists use cases and pricing. No redundant words; all information is front-loaded and essential.

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 (multi-segment video assembly), the description fully covers behavior, return value, pricing, segment options, and use cases. Output schema exists for further details, so no gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by grouping segment types (a, b, c) and explaining the current unused status of titleText. It also clarifies defaults for videoStartSec and videoEndSec and the purpose of publishAs and outputAspect.

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 stitches video clips and voiceover into a single MP4, distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_test and synthesize_voiceover, and specifies the output format (Spaces, 24h signed URL).

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: marketplace catalog submissions, tutorial videos, and when you'd otherwise use screen-record + iMovie. Provides context for each segment type (a, b, c) and notes pricing (charged on success only).

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

All TestMyVibes 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools cover a wide range of functionalities, but each has a clearly distinct purpose. For example, submit_test, submit_test_batch, submit_combo, and submit_interaction_scene are all different types of submissions with unique parameters. However, the sheer number of tools (43) might cause some initial confusion, but descriptors resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_projects, create_project, get_test_results). The only exception is 'whoami', which is a common idiom and does not break the pattern. Overall, naming is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

43 tools is on the high side for a single server. The domain is broad (testing, worker marketplace, credits, cards, feedback, video), so the count is justifiable. However, it borders on being overwhelming, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple submit_* variants).

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers core workflows like project creation, test submission, result retrieval, worker management, and credit operations. However, there are gaps: no update or delete for projects, no delete for worker offerings, and no user-facing combo editing (though combos are predefined). These are minor but noticeable.

Resources

Need Help?