TestMyVibes

Mint a spendable test-payment card

provision_test_card

Issues a single-use Stripe-Issuing virtual card hard-capped at fundedUsd, billed at funded + 25% markup + $2 service fee. PAN + CVC are returned ONCE in the response and TMV never persists them. Card auto-freezes 24h after creation. In sandbox mode (test key) cards auth only against Stripe test-mode merchants, perfect for verifying customer checkout flows without real money. Charged in credits at 1 credit = $0.10 (so a $10 funded card costs ~125 credits all-in). Provisioning fee absorbed into the markup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fundedUsd`	Yes	USD amount to load onto the card (and the card's spending limit).
`testJobId`	No	Optional TMV job ID to associate the card with. Used by the AI worker to surface the card via runContext.testPaymentCard so the agent can type it at checkout.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses pricing, PAN/CVC handling, auto-freeze, sandbox behavior, and credit cost. Annotations are consistent and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them.

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?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads key info. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Covers purpose, behavior, pricing, authentication context, and return value. With 2 simple parameters and output schema, the description is fully adequate.

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 already describes parameters well. Description adds context on usage (e.g., fundedUsd as spending limit, testJobId for surfacing card) and pricing explanation.

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 issues a single-use virtual card with a hard cap, and specifies the resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like quote_test_card and freeze_test_card.

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?

Explicitly states it is 'perfect for verifying customer checkout flows without real money' and mentions sandbox mode. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, 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?