Skael API

Testlauf starten

confirm_pipeline_test

Destructive

Startet den Testlauf, den plan_pipeline_test geplant hat. Nur nach ausdrücklichem Ja der Person, mit confirmation_token und denselben Angaben wie beim Planen. Die Antwort kommt sofort mit run_id; den Stand fragst du mit get_run_status ab.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "definition_id": "<definition_id>",
      "confirmation_token": "<confirmation_token>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_pipeline_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	No	So viele Firmen durchlaufen den Test, 10 bis 50, Standard 50.
`budget_cap`	No	Obergrenze in Credits für den Test. Ohne Angabe die Summe aller Höchstpreise.
`organization`	No	Slug der Organisation. Nur nötig, wenn das Werkzeug ORG_AMBIGUOUS meldet.
`definition_id`	Yes	ID des Ablaufs aus draft_pipeline.
`client_request_id`	No	Eigene ID für diesen Aufruf. Dieselbe ID mit denselben Argumenten liefert innerhalb von 24 Stunden das erste Ergebnis, ohne erneut Credits zu kosten.
`confirmation_token`	Yes	Das confirmation_token aus plan_pipeline_test. Nur einmal gültig, zusammen mit genau denselben Angaben.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds the consent gate, the token being single-use and bound to identical arguments, plus the immediate run_id response. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not repeat the credit cost or irreversibility signal the destructive hint implies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the permissibility constraint, then the execution requirement, then the follow-up path. No filler.

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 destructive, cost-incurring mutation with no output schema, the description covers the consent requirement, argument-matching constraint, and the shape of the immediate return (run_id) plus how to poll. Minor gap: it never states that credits are consumed, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the credit and idempotency behavior of client_request_id and the ORG_AMBIGUOUS case for organization. The description only reinforces that confirmation_token must be paired with the exact planning arguments, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Startet den Testlauf") and it anchors the tool to the plan it executes ("den plan_pipeline_test geplant hat"), which separates it from the sibling confirm_pipeline_run by the word Testlauf. It stops short of naming confirm_pipeline_run explicitly as the non-test alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: only after an express yes from the person, with the confirmation_token and the same inputs as the plan. It also routes status checks to get_run_status. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to use this rather than confirm_pipeline_run.

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

All Skael API tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?