Skip to main content
Glama

Mimiq: test pages and copy on simulated people

by io.github.victorgulchenko
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mimiq.test_component

Read-only

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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\"."
  2. 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
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context: it runs a simulated-user test and, with a key, returns a report link. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and outcome; the second covers input requirements and output behavior. 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job conveying what the agent will get back ('hear whether they understand it...' and a report link). It could be slightly richer by clarifying the ambiguous 'key' and by differentiating from page/flow testing, but it is largely complete.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic guidance by clarifying that component_html and component_text can be provided individually or together, helping agents understand the intended input combination beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('show') and resource ('UI component'), enumerates concrete component types, and states the outcome ('understand it, trust it and would use it'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like test_copy or test_page.

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 usage context is implied by the enumerated component types and the instruction to provide component_html or component_text. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over test_page or test_flow, nor does it state any exclusions.

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 copy 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