Hook Detector

tracker_alerts

Your tracker alerts, newest first, with the unread count. Free. Same as GET /v1/trackers/alerts.

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": "tracker_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`api_key`	No
`mark_read`	No
`unread_only`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description provides two key behavioral context points not in the schema: the tool is 'Free' and operates identically to a specific external API call. This adds basic functional transparency. However, it lacks details on expected latency, rate limits, or error handling.

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 description is highly concise, using only two short sentences to convey the primary functionality and its API equivalence. It avoids unnecessary jargon, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given that 0% of the schema is described, the definition is fundamentally incomplete. An agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool—especially the operational parameters like 'mark_read' or 'unread_only'—without referencing the schema, thus failing the completeness test.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides zero semantic meaning for the four parameters: limit, api_key, mark_read, and unread_only. The agent must rely entirely on the schema definitions to understand what these parameters do.

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 tool's purpose is clearly defined as retrieving 'tracker alerts,' and it specifies that they are presented 'newest first.' It also provides a reference to the underlying REST API endpoint, which clarifies the scope of data provided.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description merely states what the tool is ('Same as GET /v1/trackers/alerts') without providing any guidance on when to use it versus other available alert-related tools, such as the sibling tool 'tracker_feed.' It is a descriptive statement rather than a guide.

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?