TestMyVibes

Top up credits (Stripe Checkout)

top_up_credits

Buy more credits to fund test runs that TestMyVibes' agents will execute on your behalf. Returns a Stripe Checkout URL the user must open to complete payment (Stripe requires human payment completion per their agentic-commerce policy). Once the user pays, the credits are added automatically by the Stripe webhook — poll get_credit_balance to confirm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`packIndex`	Yes	Index of the credit pack from list_credit_packs.
`cancelPath`	No	Optional path on testmyvibes.com to redirect the user to if they cancel. Defaults to '/dashboard/billing?canceled=1'.
`successPath`	No	Optional path on testmyvibes.com to redirect the user to after a successful payment. Defaults to '/dashboard/billing?success=1'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that Stripe Checkout URL requires human interaction, explains webhook credit addition, and references Stripe's policy, adding value beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words, logically flows from action to behavior to follow-up.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Explains return type, next steps, and parameter defaults; no gaps given output schema exists.

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?

Adds context to packIndex (from list_credit_packs) and default paths for cancelPath and successPath, enhancing schema which already has 100% coverage.

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 'Buy more credits' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_credit_balance and list_credit_packs.

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?

Provides when to use (need credits) and post-action steps (poll get_credit_balance). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but context is clear.

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?