Hook Detector

write_titles

Write 20 to 40 titles for your video, each borrowing the device and structure of one real outlier (a video that beat its own channel): the finds of one of your runs, or the shared index's videos nearest your topic by meaning. Each title: title, chars, first_40 (what a phone feed surely shows), device, borrows, and from (the real outlier: video_id, title, channel, multiple, find_id). best: the five whose outlier beat its channel the most among the devices the outliers share (best_basis says so; never a predicted click-through rate). label: written by Hook Detector, never a real video's title. Costs 1 credit, refunded when the writing fails; fewer than 5 outliers known is 422 too_few_outliers and costs nothing (run find_packaging on the topic first). Same as POST /v1/titles. 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": "write_titles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	20 to 40 titles (default 20)
`topic`	No	the subject of your video, 3 to 300 characters (the outliers come from the shared index); send this or run_id
`run_id`	No	a finished Packaging or Long form run of yours: its finds are the sources
`api_key`	No
`channel`	No	optional @handle whose style to write in
`content_type`	No	for a topic: long (default) or short
`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 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: 1 credit cost with refund on failure, a 422 too_few_outliers that costs nothing, and two semantic caveats an agent would otherwise get wrong (best is not a predicted click-through rate; label marks generated titles, never a real video's title). This is exactly the disclosure annotations would have provided.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information (output fields, cost, error codes, read-back path). The dense parentheticals and run-on clauses make it harder to scan than it needs to be, but nothing is padding.

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?

Covers sourcing, cost and refund behavior, the one relevant failure mode, the not-a-CTR caveat, and the follow-up call (get_call) for reading results. An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain returns at all, yet it still names the fields an agent must interpret.

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 86%, so count, topic, run_id, channel, content_type and idempotency_key are already documented in the schema. The description mainly restates the topic-vs-run_id sourcing ('the finds of one of your runs, or the shared index's videos nearest your topic'), which is largely mirrored in the schema text, so it adds little beyond baseline.

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?

Names a specific action (write 20-40 titles), the mechanism (each borrowing the device and structure of one real outlier), and the exact source of those outliers. An agent can distinguish this from find_packaging, find_hooks, or remix_hook without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the routing rule between the two sourcing modes (run_id = your run's finds, topic = shared index videos nearest by meaning) and the prerequisite 'run find_packaging on the topic first' when fewer than 5 outliers exist. It stops short of stating when this tool should not be used, but the context is clear.

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?