TheySaid

Relaunch usability test

relaunch_usability_test

Destructive

Re-runs an existing usability-test project ("relaunch", "re-run", "run again", "same test") with a fresh batch of AI testers on the same project. Unlike propose_usability_test + launch_usability_test, it does not create a new, duplicate project. Takes projectId (the testId from an earlier launch) and an optional numTesters for this run. Without uploadId it re-runs against the design already hosted for the project; a live public URL always serves its latest version. For an updated snapshot-hosted design, pass a new uploadId (prepare_design_snapshot, then check_design_snapshot) to point the same project at the new design; the result echoes designRefreshed: true. It does not change the audience or questions; audience changes are saved first with revise_usability_test(projectId). Returns the same testId (reusedProject: true), the resolved audience and a startedMessage. Spends AI-tester runs. Results come from wait_for_results or get_test_results.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uploadId`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`numTesters`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`testId`	No	The reused project id (no new project created).
`audience`	No	The resolved audience envelope echoed back so the caller can report exactly what was applied.
`personas`	No
`projectUrl`	No	The test's project in the TheySaid app — share it when the user asks where the test is.
`reusedProject`	No	Confirms the run was added to the existing project.
`startedMessage`	No
`designRefreshed`	No	True when a fresh uploadId re-pointed the design before this run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / projectUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The test's project in the TheySaid app — share it when the user asks where the test is.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it spends AI-tester runs (cost), reuses the testId (reusedProject: true), and echoes designRefreshed: true. Strong supplemental context, though a bit of it overlaps return-value territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core re-run action, and each sentence carries real information. It is dense and long, with parenthetical synonyms and multiple workflow branches packed into one paragraph, which slightly hurts scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shapes needn't be explained, yet the description usefully previews the reusedProject/designRefreshed echoes. Combined with the mutation cost warning and workflow branches, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: projectId is 'the testId from an earlier launch', numTesters is 'for this run', and uploadId triggers a specific workflow pointing the same project at a new design. All three params are fully disambiguated for a zero-coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Re-runs an existing usability-test project') and explicitly contrasts with siblings propose_usability_test + launch_usability_test, noting it does not create a duplicate project. An agent can distinguish this from the launch siblings without inspecting schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: use this to re-run on the same project, use revise_usability_test for audience changes, use prepare_design_snapshot/check_design_snapshot when passing a new uploadId. Covers when uploadId is needed vs when the hosted design is reused.

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

All TheySaid 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.

Resources

Need Help?