TestMyVibes

Submit a packaged AI-agent combo bundle

submit_combo

Queue a named combo against a URL. Fans into N ordered jobs (cheap bug-finders first, expensive audits last) sharing one batchId. +15% parallel premium applies. If the combo has a pauseOnBugThreshold, the worker auto-cancels remaining pending legs + refunds their credits once cumulative bug count crosses the threshold — so a broken site never burns the full bundle. Use list_combos to browse the catalog first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Target URL all legs run against. Required unless `pages` or `stories` is provided.
`pages`	No	Multi-page mode (legacy): list 1-10 distinct page URLs. Each combo leg fans out × pages.length. Cost scales linearly. Prefer `stories[]` on Whole Kit tiers.
`comboId`	Yes	ID of a combo from list_combos (e.g. 'combo-smoke-stack', 'combo-whole-kit-core').
`stories`	No	Story-based mode (Whole Kit tier preferred). Each story = one end-to-end user flow exercised by every leg in the combo. Hard-capped by the combo's maxStories (Solo=1, Core=3, Plus=6, Max=10). Pricing is the combo's flatCreditPrice (bulk-discounted at higher tiers), not derived from stories.length × per-leg cost.
`projectId`	No
`description`	Yes	Plain-English description applied to every leg as the job title.
`projectLabel`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: ordered job fan-out, parallel premium, auto-cancel and refund on pauseOnBugThreshold. Annotations only state readOnlyHint false, so the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral context on how the combo execution works.

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, each earning its place: main action, fan-out/parallel behavior, auto-cancel mechanism, and a usage tip. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, combo bundling, auto-cancel logic), the description adequately covers the core behavior and provides a usage tip. It does not explain projectId/projectLabel, but those are common context fields. With an output schema present (not inspected), return values are not required in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 71% (5 of 7 params described), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond restating 'URL' and 'named combo'. It does not clarify pages vs. stories, nor projectId/projectLabel. Meets baseline but does not compensate for undocumented params.

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 action ('Queue a named combo against a URL') and specifies the resource (combo bundle). It distinguishes from siblings like list_combos and other submit tools by using terminology like 'fans into N ordered jobs' and 'batchId', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 to browse the catalog first with list_combos, providing a concrete alternative. It implies this is for combos rather than individual tests, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for single tests use submit_test). Good context but could be more explicit about exclusionary guidance.

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?