TestMyVibes

Claim a job

claim_job

Atomically take ownership of a pending job. Returns the full checklist the worker needs to walk through, plus the SLA deadline. After this call, the job is yours; submit results with submit_job_results when done, or it expires after the SLA and is returned to the queue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	The jobId from list_available_jobs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses atomicity, return of checklist and SLA deadline, ownership transfer, and expiration behavior. Annotations already indicate mutation, but the description adds valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core behavior, return values, and workflow (claim, submit, expire). It does not mention error scenarios (e.g., job already claimed), but overall it is complete for a claim tool.

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%, and the schema already describes the jobId parameter ('from list_available_jobs'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Atomically take ownership of a pending job.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like list_available_jobs and submit_job_results by explaining the workflow.

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 implies when to use the tool (to claim a pending job) and references submit_job_results as the follow-up. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear.

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?