Hook Detector

create_tracker

Make a tracker of up to 50 channels: hourly reads of their newest uploads, alerts when one reaches the multiple (default 3x its channel) or views per hour, in the app and by email. 1 credit a tracked channel a day. Same as POST /v1/trackers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`team`	No	true: your team's tracker, which every member sees and edits
`api_key`	No
`channels`	No	UC ids, @handles or addresses
`visibility`	No	private, shared or public	private
`alert_email`	No
`vph_threshold`	No
`multiple_threshold`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / team

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true: your team's tracker, which every member sees and edits",
+  "title": "Team",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver real behavioral facts: a 50-channel ceiling, hourly polling cadence, default 3x alert multiplier, in-app plus email delivery, and a billing rate of 1 credit per tracked channel per day. It omits permission requirements, what happens when the cap or credit balance is exceeded, and whether the caller's team scope affects creation.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its behavior, ending with the useful API mapping ("Same as POST /v1/trackers"). Nearly every clause earns its place; the alert-multiplier phrasing is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and 38% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around auth/api_key, visibility semantics, and failure modes that an agent would want before calling it.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies the channels cap and gives the meaning and default for the multiple threshold ("default 3x its channel") plus the views-per-hour alert concept. It says nothing about name constraints, api_key, alert_email, or how visibility interacts with the team flag — roughly half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 ("Make a tracker") and then defines what a tracker actually is — hourly reads, alerting, delivery channels. That operational definition goes well beyond the name. It does not explicitly contrast with clone_tracker or update_tracker, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the "up to 50 channels" cap and the credit cost hint at when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no mention of clone_tracker or update_tracker as alternatives for existing trackers. An agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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

All Hook Detector 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?