TestMyVibes

Browse the AI personality menu

list_personality_offerings

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all packaged AI tests TMV publishes — each personality has 0..N service offerings (e.g. 'First-Time User • Signup gauntlet • 10 credits • ~5min'). Submit one back to submit_test as personalityOfferingId and the run's step budget, inbox provisioning, personality, and price are all locked to the offering preset. Use this when you want a deterministic, named test product rather than tuning maxSteps / useTestInbox by hand.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No	Optional filter by personality tier.
`maxCredits`	No	Optional ceiling on credit price (e.g. 10 → exclude offerings that cost more).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about locking settings upon submission, though not strictly about the listing behavior itself.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple schema and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and connection to submit_test, making it fully informative.

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 coverage is 100%; description adds value with an example offering structure and explains how parameters filter the offerings, beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists packaged AI tests with service offerings, and contrasts with manual tuning, distinguishing it from sibling list tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when you want a deterministic, named test product') and contrasts with manual tuning, providing clear context.

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?