TestMyVibes

Create a managed retained test identity

create_test_identity

Creates a first-class managed test identity with a persistent TMV inbox and persona, scoped to this account and one customer-site origin. Use it before multi-run or multi-user tests when you need the same account history to survive. If username/password are omitted, submit_test with identityMode='reuse' and this testIdentityId will perform the first signup and save credentials on PASS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No
`password`	No	Optional existing password. Stored encrypted at rest and never returned by list tools.
`username`	No	Optional existing login username/email if the account already exists on the customer site.
`autoRenew`	No	When true, expiry is extended by use. Billing renewal enforcement is handled separately from this metadata flag.
`createdBy`	No	Who originally created this customer-site account. Use human for accounts created by a TMV human tester, ai for accounts created by an AI run, and external for credentials you already have.	external
`projectId`	No
`setupNotes`	No	Optional notes about the account setup, role, permissions, or fixture state.
`customerSite`	Yes	Customer site origin or URL this identity is allowed to test against.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds that the identity is retained, has expiry and auto-renewal, and credentials can be saved on first signup. No contradictions. Provides good behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 only; first sentence defines purpose and scope, second sentence provides usage guidance and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 purpose, usage, and key parameter behavior. References submit_test for additional context. Output schema exists (not shown) which likely details return value. Could mention output briefly, but overall sufficient for selection and correct invocation.

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 has 75% description coverage (6 of 8 parameters described). Description adds critical semantics: explains the interplay between username/password omission and submit_test, and scoping of customerSite. This goes beyond schema descriptions, enhancing understanding of parameter relationships.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates a managed test identity with persistent inbox and persona, scoped to account and customer-site origin. Differentiates from sibling tools like check_test_identity and renew_test_identity by specifying its use for multi-run/multi-user tests requiring history persistence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: before multi-run or multi-user tests requiring account history survival. Provides alternative behavior when username/password are omitted, referencing submit_test with identityMode='reuse'. No sibling tools are named for exclusion, 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?