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

Test copy

mimiq.test_copy

Show one piece of copy (a headline, tagline, value proposition, email subject line or call to action) to simulated people and hear how they react and why. To choose between two versions, use mimiq.compare_copy. This tool still accepts variant_b and then runs that same comparison. Returns each person's reaction, objections and what would help, and the counts. With a key, the result ends with a link to the full report in the Mimiq app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many simulated people (default 10, max 50).
`audience`	No	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.
`variant_a`	Yes	The copy to test.
`variant_b`	No	Optional second version. With it, this runs mimiq.compare_copy.
`timeout_seconds`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run`	No
`call`	No
`tool`	Yes
`status`	No
`report_url`	No
`summary_card`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / variant_b / description

Previous value: -"Optional second version. With it, this runs mimiq.compare_copy (needs a key)."New value: +"Optional second version. With it, this runs mimiq.compare_copy."

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / audience / description

Previous value: -"Target audience. E.g. \"developers evaluating CI/CD tools\". If omitted, defaults to \"likely audience for this content\"."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 / count / description

Previous value: -"Simulated users per variant (default 10, max 50)."New value: +"How many simulated people (default 10, max 50)."

changedInput schema / properties / variant_a / description

Previous value: -"The copy to test (or first variant for A/B comparison)."New value: +"The copy to test."

changedInput schema / properties / variant_b / description

Previous value: -"Optional second variant for A/B comparison. If provided, returns a winner."New value: +"Optional second version. With it, this runs mimiq.compare_copy (needs a key)."

Changed4 schema fields changedMar 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / audience / description

Previous value: -"Target audience. E.g. \"developers evaluating CI/CD tools\" or \"e-commerce shoppers\"."New value: +"Target audience. E.g. \"developers evaluating CI/CD tools\". If omitted, defaults to \"likely audience for this content\"."

addedInput schema / properties / audience / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
addedInput schema / properties / variant_a / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```
addedInput schema / properties / variant_b / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```

First observedMar 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return contents (per-person reactions, objections, 'what would help', counts) and that a keyed run appends a report link, plus the notable behavior that variant_b silently upgrades the call to compare_copy. No cost/rate-limit info, but that is a minor gap against the annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the routing hint, and every sentence carries information. Slightly recursive sentence about variant_b ('still accepts variant_b and then runs that same comparison') repeats the routing point already made.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't describe return shapes, yet it helpfully summarizes them. For a 5-param tool with annotations and an output schema, the routing, behavior, and output summary make it largely complete; only the non-variant parameters and sibling differentiation are under-addressed.

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 coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for variant_a and variant_b (and the variant_b behavior is already stated in the schema). The count, audience, and timeout_seconds parameters are left entirely to the schema, and audience auto-selection is only documented in the schema, not amplified here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one piece of copy ... to simulated people') and enumerates exactly which copy types qualify (headline, tagline, value proposition, subject line, CTA). It also differentiates itself from the most confusable sibling by naming mimiq.compare_copy outright, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear routing advice: 'To choose between two versions, use mimiq.compare_copy,' and clarifies the fallback that passing variant_b still triggers that comparison. It lacks guidance on the other near siblings (e.g. test_text vs. test_copy, or when an audience test is preferable to ask_audience), so context is clear but not exhaustively discriminating.

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 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.