create_projectRegister a new site for testing. Returns the projectId you can attach to future submit_test calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The site's URL. | |
| name | Yes | Display name for the project. | |
| defaultJobType | No | Default test category. | General QA |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Tool result payload (JSON object) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: the tool is a creation operation that returns a projectId for later use, and it does not contradict annotations. It adds behavioral details beyond the flags.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste. 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?
The tool is simple with three parameters and an output schema; the description adequately covers the core operation and return value. However, it lacks any reference to related tools (e.g., update_project, delete_project) which would improve completeness for an agent.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (url, name, defaultJobType). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but it does contextualize parameters by mentioning the returned projectId and linkage to submit_test. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a new site for testing'), and uniquely mentions the return value ('projectId') that differentiates it from sibling tools like list_projects or submit_test.
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?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. Among 50+ siblings, there is no mention of when to create vs. list, update, or submit, leaving the agent to infer usage from name alone.
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.