TestMyVibes

Submit job results

submit_job_results

Submit the worker's outcomes for a claimed job. Triggers the same earnings + report + client notification pipeline a human checker submission triggers. Returns the report id and the final pass/fail status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`jobId`	Yes	The job ID from claim_job.
`summary`	Yes	Plain-English summary of what was tested + what worked / didn't.
`createdIdentityCredentials`	No	When the claimed job asked the human worker to create a persistent managed identity, return the login credentials here so TMV can encrypt and save the persona for later AI or human runs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing side effects: triggers earnings, report, client notification pipeline, and returns report id and pass/fail status. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information. Example of efficient description.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the `createdIdentityCredentials` parameter, error handling, or idempotency guarantees. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 75%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'worker's outcomes' and 'claimed job' without detailing the items or summary structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it submits worker outcomes for a claimed job using a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('job results'). It mentions the triggered pipeline, distinguishing it from read tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling submission tools like 'retest_job' or 'submit_conversation_test'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it should be used after claiming a job, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention related tools like 'claim_job' or 'retest_job' for comparison.

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?