Skip to main content
Glama

Mimiq: test pages and sign-up flows on simulated people

by io.github.victorgulchenko
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Test a UI component

mimiq.test_component

Show a UI component (a button, card, form, modal, navigation or pricing table) to simulated people and hear whether they understand it, trust it and would use it. Provide component_html, component_text, or both. With a key, the result ends with a link to the full report in the Mimiq app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoWhat the component should achieve, e.g. "get people to click upgrade".
countNoHow many simulated people (default 10, max 50).
audienceNoWho the simulated people should be, in plain words, e.g. "startup founders in SF" or "parents shopping for kids toys". If omitted, Mimiq picks the likely audience from the content.
component_htmlNoThe HTML of the component.
component_textNoA description of the component (instead of, or with, the HTML).
timeout_secondsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNo
callNo
toolYes
statusNo
report_urlNo
summary_cardNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "call": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "headline": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "pick": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "reason": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "report_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "run": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary_card": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "tool"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / audience / description
      Previous value: -"Target audience for the component."New value: +"Who the simulated people should be, in plain words, e.g. \"startup founders in SF\" or \"parents shopping for kids toys\". If omitted, Mimiq picks the likely audience from the content."
    • changedInput schema / properties / component_html / description
      Previous value: -"The HTML of the component to evaluate."New value: +"The HTML of the component."
    • changedInput schema / properties / component_text / description
      Previous value: -"Text description of the component (alternative or supplement to HTML)."New value: +"A description of the component (instead of, or with, the HTML)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / count / description
      Previous value: -"Number of simulated users (default 10, max 50)."New value: +"How many simulated people (default 10, max 50)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / goal / description
      Previous value: -"What the component should achieve, e.g. \"get users to click the upgrade button\"."New value: +"What the component should achieve, e.g. \"get people to click upgrade\"."
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / audience / maxLength
      Added value: +500
    • addedInput schema / properties / component_html / maxLength
      Added value: +50000
    • addedInput schema / properties / component_text / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only assert the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent and non-destructive. The description usefully adds that supplying a key appends a link to the full report in the Mimiq app, which is real auth/output context. It stops short of disclosing cost, run duration semantics, or what the simulated responses contain.

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 the capability and the evaluation dimensions, followed by the input requirement and the key-dependent output note. Zero 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. Purpose and inputs are adequately covered; the only real gap is sibling disambiguation (component vs page vs flow) and any mention of cost or processing time.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value the schema lacks: it resolves the zero-required-parameter ambiguity by stating at least one of component_html/component_text must be supplied, and it clarifies the component types the HTML may represent.

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?

Specific verb ('Show ... to simulated people') plus a precisely scoped resource ('a UI component (a button, card, form, modal, navigation or pricing table)') and the outcome measured (understand, trust, use). The component framing clearly separates it from siblings like test_page, test_flow, test_copy and test_text.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says to provide component_html, component_text, or both, which scopes the call, but it never states when to choose this tool over test_page, test_flow or test_text. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly routed.

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

All Mimiq: test pages and sign-up flows on simulated people toolsInspect
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