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

Test text

mimiq.test_text

Show any text (a positioning statement, feature description, error message, instructions or an announcement) to simulated people and hear how they react. Pass goal to say what the text should achieve. Returns each person's reaction, objections and what would help. With a key, the result ends with a link to the full report in the Mimiq app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	What the text should achieve, e.g. "get people to update their card".
`text`	Yes	The text to test.
`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.
`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"
+}

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: -"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 text should achieve, e.g. \"convince users to upgrade to the paid plan\"."New value: +"What the text should achieve, e.g. \"get people to update their card\"."

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"The text content to test."New value: +"The text to test."

Changed4 schema fields changedMar 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / audience / description

Previous value: -"Target audience for the content."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 / goal / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
addedInput schema / properties / text / maxLength
```
Added value: +20000
```

First observedMar 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: it discloses the shape of the return ('each person's reaction, objections and what would help') and the conditional report-link behavior when a key is supplied, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Four short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: what it does, how to steer it with a goal, what comes back, and the report-link behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 it need not describe return values in depth, and the description still summarizes them usefully. The one real gap is the unresolved overlap with test_copy and the other test_* siblings, which the description never addresses.

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% and already documents goal, text, count and audience, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the meaning of goal and says nothing about count, audience, or the undocumented timeout_seconds, adding little beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show any text ... to simulated people and hear how they react') and enumerates the kinds of text it accepts, which clarifies scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling mimiq.test_copy, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 sentence 'Pass goal to say what the text should achieve' gives practical guidance on how to use the optional goal field, and the audience field's omissibility is documented in the schema. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like test_copy or compare_copy, leaving selection ambiguous.

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.