Skip to main content
Glama

find_sponsors

Who sponsors the channels on a subject: in the descriptions of its outliers, sponsor lines, promo codes and offer links found in code, plus Scrape Creators' sponsor read of videos YouTube marks as paid promotion, each named by one model read and kept only when the brand's name is in its own line. sponsors: brand, kind (sponsor, affiliate, other), channel_count and video_count (counted in code), channels, and videos with the evidence line as written, the code and the link. Costs 1 credit, refunded when the read fails. Same as POST /v1/sponsors. Read it back with get_call.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
subjectNo3 to 120 characters
idempotency_keyNo1 to 255 visible ASCII characters; the same key and request within 24 hours answer the saved remix and charge nothing; the same key with another request is 422 idempotency_key_reused

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses credit cost (1 credit, refunded on failure), data sources, the filtering rule ('kept only when the brand's name is in its own line'), and output fields. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the cost and refund detail are valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph with a long, hard-to-parse first sentence packed with source details. The remaining sentences are efficient, but the structure could be improved for readability and front-loading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description helpfully lists key output fields. For a find tool with no annotations, it covers purpose, sources, cost, and follow-up; minor gaps exist around auth requirements and behavior when no subject is provided.

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 67%: subject and idempotency_key are described in the schema, while api_key is not. The description mentions 'on a subject' but adds no format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, and idempotency semantics are only in the schema.

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: 'Who sponsors the channels on a subject', and details the data sources (outlier descriptions, sponsor lines, promo codes, offer links, paid promotion reads). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like find_hooks or find_packaging, but the sponsor domain is distinct enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to siblings such as find_hooks or find_packaging. It does note 'Read it back with get_call' for follow-up and API equivalence to POST /v1/sponsors, which implies usage context but does not route between alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources