TestMyVibes

Submit a multi-agent interaction scene

submit_interaction_scene

Queues 2-10 AI agents in parallel as roles in a coordinated scene. Each role gets its own browser, persona, and goal — and uses signal() + wait_for_signal() actions to communicate with sibling roles. Use this for publisher+viewer (livestream), buyer+seller (marketplace), multi-user chat, host+guest flows, anything where one agent must produce a value (URL / order id / stream id) that another agent needs. Returns sceneId + role-to-jobId mapping. Each role billed as a normal AI test + 15% parallel premium on top.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`roles`	Yes
`projectId`	No
`description`	Yes	Plain-English description of the scene (e.g. 'PM Comms publisher → viewer livestream verification').
`projectLabel`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating it interacts externally but is not destructive. The description adds value by detailing parallel execution, browser-per-role, persona assignment, signal/wait_for_signal communication, and the return mapping. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond structured fields.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with core functionality, then use cases and output/billing details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity of a multi-agent orchestration tool, the description covers high-level behavior and output but lacks detail on parameter options like identity modes, device presets, session cookies, and video call testing, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With schema description coverage at 25%, the description should compensate but only generically mentions 'browser, persona, goal' and signal actions. It does not explain the many properties inside roles (e.g., url, steps, identityMode, sessionCookies) which have detailed schema descriptions but are not highlighted in the tool-level description.

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 queues 2-10 AI agents in parallel as coordinated roles. It provides specific use-case examples (publisher+viewer, buyer+seller) and distinguishes from single-agent tests by emphasizing multi-agent orchestration and signal-based communication.

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 lists appropriate scenarios (livestream, marketplace, multi-user chat) and implies when not to use (e.g., single-agent tests). It provides billing context (15% parallel premium) but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like submit_test or submit_conversation_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?