TestMyVibes

Capture screenshots of a URL across viewports

capture_screenshots

Drive a headless Chromium against a URL and return a screenshot for each requested viewport (mobile / tablet / desktop). Optional clickPaths lets you grab the state behind a sequence of clicks (e.g. ['Sign in', '#email', 'Continue']). Pricing: 1 credit per single viewport, 5 credits for the desktop+tablet+mobile triple (otherwise 1 × viewport count). Output: signed Spaces URLs valid for 7 days. Use this for marketing screenshots, design QA, regression-watch baselines — anything where you need pixels without a full AI test.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public URL to capture. Must be reachable from TMV's outbound IP.
`settleMs`	No	Milliseconds to wait after navigation + each click before screenshotting. Default 1500ms covers most SPAs.
`viewports`	Yes	Which viewports to capture. 'mobile' = iPhone 14 (390×844), 'tablet' = iPad Air (820×1180), 'desktop' = 1440×900 laptop.
`clickPaths`	No	Optional sequence of selectors / visible text to click before screenshotting. Each entry applied in order; missing selectors are skipped (non-fatal).
`projectLabel`	No	Audit label naming which of your projects requested this capture.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: pricing model, output URL validity (7 days), and non-fatal click path failure. Annotations lack destructive or idempotent hints, but the description compensates well. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core action, then covers optional features, pricing, use cases, and output. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's capabilities, including optional click paths, pricing, output format, and use cases. With an output schema present, the mention of signed Spaces URLs is sufficient. No gaps remain.

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. The description adds value by specifying viewport resolutions (e.g., iPhone 14 for mobile), default settleMs behavior, and non-fatal nature of clickPaths. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool drives headless Chromium to capture screenshots of a URL for specified viewports (mobile, tablet, desktop). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'assemble_demo_video' or 'submit_test' which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly lists use cases: marketing screenshots, design QA, regression-watch baselines. It also mentions pricing per viewport and the requirement that the URL be publicly reachable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for full AI tests.

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?