list_test_identitiesReturns managed retained identities owned by this account. These are the first-class successor to kept personas and can be reused with submit_test.testIdentityId or in interaction-scene roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | ||
| customerSite | No | ||
| includeExpired | No |
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that identities are 'owned by this account' (scoping) and 'can be reused' (persistence). These details go beyond the annotations, so the description adds value.
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?
The description is two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and key usage context. No filler or redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Despite having an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description omits any explanation of the three input parameters, which are all optional and non-obvious. The tool's filtering capabilities (via customerSite and includeExpired) are critical for correct usage, but not described.
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?
The parameter schema has 0% description coverage, with three parameters (projectId, customerSite, includeExpired) completely undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain any of these parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Users cannot infer the meaning of these parameters from the description.
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 clearly states the tool returns managed retained identities and distinguishes it from kept personas by calling them 'first-class successor', which differentiates it from sibling tool list_kept_personas. The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource is well-defined.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool over list_kept_personas (for modern identities) and mentions reusability in submit_test and interaction-scene roles, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list prerequisites, so it's not a 5.
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.