vibekit_qa_statusGet the latest automated QA results and status for an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App ID (from vibekit_list_apps) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the call succeeded. | |
| data | No | Latest QA run status and results summary. | |
| error | No | Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Latest QA run status and results summary."
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, confirming this is a read-only operation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., response format, rate limits) are provided beyond what the annotation already declares.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema existence and the tool's simplicity (single required parameter), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the main action. It covers the core function without needing to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'appId' already described as 'App ID (from vibekit_list_apps)'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('automated QA results and status'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'vibekit_run_qa' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'for an app', implying the tool is used after identifying an app via 'vibekit_list_apps'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., 'vibekit_run_qa' to trigger QA) or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.