TestMyVibes

Subscribe to persistent persona seats

subscribe_test_identities

Creates a Stripe Checkout subscription for managed persistent persona seats. MCP clients can start the subscription flow and return the checkout URL, but a human must approve payment in Stripe. This subscription covers persona storage/inbox/credential retention only; test runs still require credits or internal-use billing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`planId`	Yes
`cancelPath`	No	Optional testmyvibes.com redirect path after canceled checkout.
`successPath`	No	Optional testmyvibes.com redirect path after successful checkout.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destructive or idempotent guarantees. The description adds context: creating a subscription requires human payment approval and covers specific resources. It does not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences succinctly convey the tool's purpose, workflow, and constraints. No extraneous words.

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?

For a tool with 3 params, an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the key behavioral aspects: human approval needed, scope of subscription, and that it returns a checkout URL. Prerequisites are not detailed but openWorldHint allows for exploration.

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 67%. The description does not provide additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema offers (planId enum, cancelPath/successPath redirect paths). Baseline is appropriate given coverage.

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 the tool creates a Stripe Checkout subscription for persistent persona seats, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes its scope by noting what the subscription covers and excludes (test runs still require credits), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 explains that MCP clients can initiate the subscription flow and return a checkout URL, but human approval is required for payment. It also clarifies that the subscription only covers persona storage, inbox, and credential retention, implying when other billing methods are needed. No explicit alternatives are named.

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?