Skip to main content
Glama

VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

list_hooks

Read-only

List the hooks this account has bought, newest first. Free (WP-G).

    Retrievable for 90 days. Args: mode (instant|smart|research|remix, or a generate
    alias such as template/search), since (ISO timestamp), tag (exact fleet-tag match),
    topic (substring), request_id (recover one charged call's hooks), unreported (only
    hooks a first outcome report can reward), limit (1-100), offset, api_key. Returns
    {hooks:[{hook_id, text, archetype, mode, score_total, created_at, request_id}],
    limit, offset, total}. Errors: unauthorized, invalid_request, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoFilter to hooks carrying EXACTLY this fleet tag: a lowercase slug of 1-40 chars of [a-z0-9_-], matched LITERALLY. `_` is a legal tag character and is NOT a wildcard here, and neither is `%`; there is no pattern matching. Omit for every tag.
modeNoFilter to hooks bought from this engine. Canonical stored values: instant|smart|research|remix; the generate aliases (template|off|quick, llm|on|fast, search|deep|deep_research) are accepted and resolved to their canonical value. Omit for every mode.
limitNoMax hooks to return, 1-200. Above the ceiling is an invalid_request, never a silent truncation.
sinceNoReturn only rows created at or after this UTC timestamp. Compared LEXICALLY against stored 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ' values, so pass that exact format (a date-only string or a unix epoch silently selects the wrong window). Omit for no lower bound.
topicNoCase-insensitive SUBSTRING match against the topic a hook was generated for (unlike `tag`, which is exact). Omit for every topic.
offsetNoNumber of rows to skip for paging, 0-9223372036854775807. Page with offset += the limit you actually requested; `total` in the response is the unpaged count. The ceiling is SQLite's largest bindable integer: above it the read could only ever have been a 500, so it is a typed invalid_request instead.
api_keyNoAPI key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.
request_idNoReturn ONLY the hooks produced by this request_id. This is the exact recovery filter: an agent that lost a generate response reads the request_id off list_runs (or its own log) and gets back precisely the hooks that call was charged for, with no guessing by topic or timestamp. An unknown or foreign request_id returns an empty page, never an error.
unreportedNotrue = only hooks with no outcome yet, i.e. the ones a first report_outcome can still earn a reward on. false = only hooks already reported. Omit for both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hooksNoThis page: {hook_id, text, archetype, mode, score_total, created_at, request_id}. hook_id is what report_outcome and get_hook take.
limitNoPage size actually applied.
totalNoRows matching the filters IGNORING paging: the number to page through, not the number returned here.
offsetNoOffset this page started at.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds cost (Free), data retention (90 days), error types (unauthorized, invalid_request, rate_limited), and the return shape. It does not contradict annotations. The limit discrepancy is noted but belongs to parameter semantics.

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?

The description is a single compact paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then a dense list of args and return/error info. Every sentence earns its place without verbosity.

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?

Given 9 parameters and output schema, the description covers cost, retention, errors, and return structure. It is nearly complete, but the limit inaccuracy (1-100 vs schema's 1-200) creates a gap in reliable context, so not a 5.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with rich descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes parameters, but it incorrectly states 'limit (1-100)' while the schema allows 1-200. This active misinformation about a parameter range reduces trust and scores below baseline.

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?

The description starts with "List the hooks this account has bought, newest first," which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hook (single hook) and generate_hooks (creation).

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?

The description provides useful context: 'Free (WP-G)' and 'Retrievable for 90 days.' It implies when the tool can be used, but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state exclusions. Despite no explicit alternatives, the context is clear enough for a 4.

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

All VHGENGINE toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources