Hook Detector

review_edit

Edit Review of a cut before upload (25 credits; an unlisted or public YouTube link up to 60 minutes): cuts a minute, long shots, dead air, sound changes, on-screen text, and the notes as Premiere CSV, Resolve EDL and FCPXML markers. Runs as a job. Same as POST /v1/review/edit; to review the file itself (when YouTube refuses our servers the link is refused free with upload_instead), send it to POST /v1/review/edit/upload.

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": "review_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	a YouTube link: watch, youtu.be or shorts address
`api_key`	No
`idempotency_key`	No	1 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it states the cost (25 credits), input constraints (unlisted/public YouTube link up to 60 minutes), that it runs as a job, and the fallback behavior when YouTube refuses the link. It does not cover API key needs or idempotency behavior, but those are partly in 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The main purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense but not bloated. It is a single long, somewhat run-on sentence with a slightly awkward parenthetical about YouTube refusal and upload_instead, but every major clause adds value for this complex tool.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it helpfully names output formats. For a tool with no annotations and only 3 parameters, it covers cost, input restrictions, job execution, and an upload fallback, leaving only minor gaps around authentication and idempotency.

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 description coverage is 67%, so the description should compensate for gaps. It adds useful constraint on the url parameter (unlisted/public YouTube link up to 60 minutes) beyond the schema's format examples, but says nothing about api_key semantics, and idempotency is already documented 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?

The description clearly states the specific action and resource: 'Edit Review of a cut before upload,' and lists the concrete edit artifacts it detects/produces (cuts, long shots, dead air, sound changes, on-screen text, CSV/EDL/FCPXML markers). It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like review_video or review_short, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear usage context: before upload, using an unlisted or public YouTube link up to 60 minutes. It also states an alternative path for reviewing the file itself via POST /v1/review/edit/upload when YouTube refuses the link, which is useful routing guidance, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling review_* tools.

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?