TestMyVibes

Re-run a previously completed test

retest_job

Idempotent

Re-run an existing test job against the latest deployment. Useful after pushing a fix surfaced by get_test_results — call this to verify whether the bug is gone. Keeps the original test's URL, custom goal, system prompt, and inbox configuration so the verification covers the same flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes	Job ID returned by submit_test (or a prior retest_job).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it keeps the original test's URL, goal, prompt, and inbox config, providing useful context beyond annotations. Minor gap: it doesn't specify whether a new job ID is created each time.

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 concise sentences front-load the action, then explain the use case and behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the action, when to use, and what is preserved. Slightly incomplete regarding potential side effects or idempotency behavior, but appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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% with a description for jobId. The description adds that the jobId comes from submit_test or a prior retest_job, providing source context beyond the schema. It also explains that the original test configuration is preserved, indirectly clarifying the parameter's role.

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 're-runs an existing test job against the latest deployment', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like submit_test (which creates new tests) and get_test_results (which reads results).

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 advises using this tool after pushing a fix surfaced by get_test_results, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., submitting a completely new test).

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?