agentView

Test Display Content

test_display_content

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run validator for generated HTML: runs agentView's size and description checks WITHOUT touching a real display. Use after composing complex HTML and before send_html or broadcast_content. No display_id needed; the response carries simulated=true. Capped at 1 MB. Requires authentication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No	Complete HTML document to validate. Mutually exclusive with base64_html — provide exactly one.
`base64_html`	No	Base64-encoded HTML payload. Mutually exclusive with html.
`description`	Yes	Short human-readable description of what the HTML represents (1-1000 chars). Same validation rules as send_html.
`access_token`	No	Optional bearer token; prefer session_request_id.
`session_request_id`	No	Session handle from create_auth_session; pass it on every authenticated call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`success`	No
`displayId`	No
`simulated`	No
`sizeBytes`	No
`description`	No
`displayName`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important behavior beyond annotations: 'simulated=true', 'capped at 1 MB', 'requires authentication', and 'without touching a real display'. These complement the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradiction, giving the agent a full safety profile.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage, response marker, limit, and auth. No wasted words; each clause adds essential information.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, usage context, simulation flag, size cap, and auth. It lacks a few details like how access_token vs session_request_id are handled, but those are fully documented in the schema, so it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond clarifying that no display_id is needed (which isn't a parameter). It does not elaborate on html/base64_html mutual exclusivity, but the schema already covers that.

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 it's a 'Dry-run validator for generated HTML' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'before send_html or broadcast_content' and mentioning 'no display_id needed', making its scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs 'Use after composing complex HTML and before send_html or broadcast_content', providing a clear temporal context and naming alternative tools. This is direct guidance on when and when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agentView 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource-action pairs (displays, organizations, assets, data slots, store templates, auth). A few clusters like the get_store_template_* family and the auth/session tools could still confuse an agent, but their descriptions are explicit enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is consistent verb_noun snake_case (list_*, get_*, create_*, delete_*, send_*, set_*, manage_*). Deviations like fetch, search, authenticate, logout, and pair_by_code are understandable but break the otherwise uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 57 tools this server far exceeds the 50+ threshold, creating an extreme tool-set size for an MCP server. Even though the underlying platform is feature-rich, the sheer number of tools heavily taxes context and selection.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers display, organization, asset, data slot, store template, auth, API key, and licensing lifecycles in impressive depth. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operation for display categories and no reboot/power control for displays.

Resources

Need Help?