check_test_identityRead-only validation for a managed identity: ownership, expiry, target-site authorization, and whether credentials exist. Does not return the password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetUrl | No | ||
| testIdentityId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Tool result payload (JSON object) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Read-only validation' but the annotation readOnlyHint is false, a direct contradiction. The description adds useful context (does not return password) but the contradiction undermines trust. Per rules, a contradiction forces a score of 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, directly stating purpose and a key behavioral constraint. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the contradiction, missing parameter explanations, and that the tool has an output schema (requiring no return value doc), the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics and contradicts annotations, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (targetUrl, testIdentityId). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent unclear on how to correctly populate these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this tool performs 'Read-only validation' for a managed identity, listing specific checks (ownership, expiry, authorization, credentials) and explicitly noting it does not return the password. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_identity, delete_test_identity, and renew_test_identity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for validating a managed identity without modifying it, which contrasts with create/delete/renew siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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).
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.