TestMyVibes

Complete checkout (ChatGPT Instant Checkout)

complete_checkout

Called by ChatGPT (or any agent runtime supporting Stripe's Shared Payment Token flow) after the user clicks Pay in an inline payment widget. Receives the SPT, charges it via Stripe, and credits the user's TMV account synchronously. The checkout_session_id is the Stripe Checkout Session ID returned by top_up_credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buyer`	No
`payment_data`	Yes
`checkout_session_id`	Yes	Stripe Checkout Session ID minted by top_up_credits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Disclosure goes beyond annotations: states synchronous charge and credit. Annotations indicate not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive; description aligns. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with key context and action. No unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose and flow.

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?

Covers main behavioral flow and parameter linkage, but lacks detail on error conditions or prerequisites for buyer/payment_data. Output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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 33%; description adds meaning for checkout_session_id (links to top_up_credits). Other parameters (payment_data, buyer) rely mostly on schema descriptions. Partial compensation.

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 completes checkout after user clicks Pay, using SPT, charging via Stripe, and crediting TMV account. It distinguishes from sibling top_up_credits by referencing its output.

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?

Specifies caller context (ChatGPT/agent runtime) and timing (after Pay click). References prerequisite top_up_credits via checkout_session_id. No explicit exclusions, but 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?