Execute test suites on an ElevenLabs agent to validate its behavior and responses using specified test cases.
Run Tests On The Agent
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tests | Yes | List of tests to run on the agent | |
| agent_id | Yes | The id of an agent. This is returned on agent creation. | |
| branch_id | No | ||
| repeat_count | No | Number of times to run each test. When greater than 1, results are grouped and summarized. | |
| agent_config_override | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context such as auth, rate limits, what gets created, or what happens on repeat_count. It merely restates the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise; like the "Process" calibration, brevity without information does not earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter mutation-style route with nested agent_config_override, no output schema, and many sibling test routes, the description is far too thin. Annotations and partial schema descriptions help, but key routing and parameter details remain missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 60%; agent_id, tests, and repeat_count have schema descriptions, while branch_id and agent_config_override are undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Run Tests On The Agent" restates the tool name/title rather than specifying what kind of tests, on which agent artifacts, or how this differs from siblings like resubmit_tests_route or list_chat_response_tests_route. It gives a verb and resource but no scope or distinguishing detail, fitting the tautology/restatement level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent cannot infer whether this is for response tests, test suites, or a specific route relative to sibling test tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.