Skael API

Testlauf planen

plan_pipeline_test

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plant einen kleinen Testlauf (10 bis 50 Firmen) für einen Ablauf aus draft_pipeline und nennt den Höchstpreis. Gibt nichts aus. Nenne der Person den Preis und starte erst nach ihrem ausdrücklichen Ja mit confirm_pipeline_test (confirmation_token und dieselben Angaben).

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>"
    },
    "name": "plan_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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this with "Gibt nichts aus" and adds the two-step confirmation contract, including that a confirmation_token is produced for the follow-up call. It does not mention the ORG_AMBIGUOUS handling path, which is left to the schema, but otherwise adds real context beyond the 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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the cost guarantee, followed by the required human-in-the-loop procedure. No redundant or filler wording.

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 four-parameter, non-destructive planning tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the effect (no spend), the returned price, and the handoff to confirm_pipeline_test. The only gap is that it does not mention the ORG_AMBIGUOUS resolution flow when several organizations match.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 10–50 rows range and the budget_cap default. The description only echoes the rows range and the notion of a maximum price; it adds no meaning about budget_cap precedence or the organization parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Plant einen kleinen Testlauf ... für einen Ablauf aus draft_pipeline") plus the scope constraint (10 to 50 companies) and the key outcome ("nennt den Höchstpreis"). It also names the sibling tools draft_pipeline (source of definition_id) and confirm_pipeline_test (the next step), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-proceed: quote the price to the person and only call confirm_pipeline_test after their explicit yes. The alternative tool and the exact inputs it needs (confirmation_token and the same details) are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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?