vibekit_run_qaKick off an automated QA run (headless-browser checks) against a hosted app. Poll vibekit_qa_status for results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | App ID (from vibekit_list_apps) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | Whether the call succeeded. | |
| data | No | QA run start confirmation with run id/status. | |
| error | No | Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "QA run start confirmation with run id/status."
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that this runs 'headless-browser checks', implying a non-destructive but active operation. It also implies asynchronous behavior by mentioning polling, which is valuable beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately provide the next action. There is no filler, and every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what happens (QA run), the context (hosted app), and the follow-up action (poll status). The output schema handles return values, so the description does not need to elaborate.
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 coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing the single parameter appId as 'App ID (from vibekit_list_apps)'. The description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Kick off an automated QA run (headless-browser checks) against a hosted app.' This is a specific verb-resource combination with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'vibekit_qa_status' which polls results, making the separation evident.
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?
The description tells the agent when to use this tool (to start QA) and provides a direct follow-up: 'Poll vibekit_qa_status for results.' It references 'appId (from vibekit_list_apps)', giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.
All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.
36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.