Hook Detector

export_run

A finished run's hooks as a file a creator can open: format "csv" (default; one row per hook, opens in any spreadsheet, formula-like cells defused with a leading quote), "json" (the full hook objects) or "md" (Markdown notes, one section per hook).

Returns {"filename", "content_type", "format", "content"}, where content is the whole
file as text: write it to filename. The same bytes as GET
/v1/runs/{run_id}/export?format=... . Free.
Errors: 404 run_not_found, 409 run_not_finished while the run is queued or running
(call get_run with wait_seconds=50 first), 422 invalid_request for another format.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "export_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	csv
`run_id`	Yes
`api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: it explains the return object, format-specific transformations (csv defusing formulas), the equivalence to the HTTP GET endpoint, that it is free, and all relevant error codes. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence carries operational value: formats, return structure, HTTP equivalence, cost, and errors. The description is front-loaded with format details and uses line breaks to separate concerns, with no filler.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description adds the complete contract: return keys, content semantics, error cases, and the prerequisite wait behavior. For a tool with one required and two optional parameters, this is thoroughly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the format parameter ('csv', 'json', 'md') and gives meaning to run_id ('a finished run's hooks'). The api_key parameter is not described, but its role as authentication is reasonably inferable, making this a strong but not perfect compensation.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a finished run's hooks') and the action (export as a file), and details the three formats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_run and get_hook by focusing on the finished-run hooks export use case.

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?

It offers explicit guidance on when not to use it ('while the run is queued or running') and tells the agent to call get_run with wait_seconds=50 first. It also lists format choices, but does not explicitly name alternatives for the export use case itself.

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?