Skip to main content
Glama

Mimiq: test pages and copy on simulated people

mimiq.ask_audience

Read-only

Ask simulated people a multiple-choice question (2 to 10 options) and get each person's pick and reasoning. Use it for naming, positioning, or which feature to build next. Each person answers on their own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many simulated people (default 10, max 50).
contextNoWhat the question is for.Product validation survey
optionsYesAnswer options (2 to 10).
audienceYesWho to ask, e.g. "SaaS founders with 10 to 50 employees".
questionYesThe question.
concurrencyNoParallel workers (default 6).
timeout_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / audience / description
      Previous value: -"Who to survey. E.g. \"SaaS founders with 10-50 employees\" or \"mobile gamers aged 18-25\"."New value: +"Who to ask, e.g. \"SaaS founders with 10 to 50 employees\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / concurrency / description
      Previous value: -"Number of parallel survey workers (default 6). Higher values return results faster but may hit rate limits."New value: +"Parallel workers (default 6)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Additional context about the survey purpose."New value: +"What the question is for."
    • changedInput schema / properties / count / description
      Previous value: -"Number of respondents (default 10, max 50)."New value: +"How many simulated people (default 10, max 50)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / options / description
      Previous value: -"Answer options (2-10 choices)."New value: +"Answer options (2 to 10)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"The survey question to ask."New value: +"The question."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / audience / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • changedInput schema / properties / concurrency / description
      Previous value: -"Parallel survey workers (default 6)."New value: +"Number of parallel survey workers (default 6). Higher values return results faster but may hit rate limits."
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 300,
      +  "maximum": 900,
      +  "minimum": 30,
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each person answers independently, which is a minor behavioral detail, but does not disclose other aspects like rate limits, concurrency effects, or the nature of simulation. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the use cases are appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return content. It does not mention error cases or performance characteristics, but given the read-only, non-destructive annotations and the tool's straightforward nature, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the options constraint (2-10) and adds context about output ('pick and reasoning') that is not in the schema. However, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for other params like count, context, or timeout.

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 the action (ask) and resource (simulated people), specifies the format (multiple-choice, 2-10 options), and explains what is returned (each person's pick and reasoning). It also lists concrete use cases (naming, positioning, feature decisions) that distinguish it from sibling tools focused on testing copy, components, or flows.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases ('Use it for naming, positioning, or which feature to build next'), giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, though the sibling names are distinct enough to infer separation.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.