ugc-pocket

Submit a posted video (creator)

submit_posted_video

Idempotent

For CREATOR API keys: declare that you published a video on a social network for a campaign you are selected on. Give the public video URL (TikTok, Instagram or YouTube for automatic daily view tracking over 1 month; other https URLs are stored without tracking) and the campaign_id (see list_my_campaigns). Re-submitting the same URL for the same campaign is idempotent (returns the existing deliverable). Built for power users submitting many videos, e.g. hundreds for a challenge. Rate limit 30/min. Requires a creator API key (creator:submit scope).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`video_url`	Yes	Public URL of the published video (https).
`campaign_id`	Yes	Campaign UUID from list_my_campaigns.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No
`campaign_id`	No
`view_tracking`	No
`deliverable_id`	No
`already_submitted`	No	true when this URL was already submitted for this campaign (idempotent replay).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description details idempotency behavior (returns existing deliverable), rate limits (30/min), authentication scope (creator:submit), and tracking behavior for different URL types. This fully discloses the tool's operational characteristics and constraints.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, parameter guidance, idempotency, intended audience, rate limit, and auth requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter tool, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral details, rate limiting, and authentication. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is a fully self-contained description for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the video_url parameter's tracking implications (automatic daily tracking for certain platforms, storage without tracking for others) and by pointing to list_my_campaigns for campaign_id. This goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose: for CREATOR API keys to declare publication of a video for a selected campaign. It specifies the action (submit/declare), the resource (posted video URL), and the scope (campaign), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_my_campaigns or create_campaign_order.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for creator keys, campaigns you are selected on, and explains that campaign_id comes from list_my_campaigns. It also notes the difference between trackable URLs (TikTok/Instagram/YouTube) and others. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All ugc-pocket tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but create_campaign_draft and create_campaign_order both create campaign drafts, differentiated only by whether an API key exists. The descriptions help, but an agent could still be uncertain which to invoke.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_campaign_status, create_campaign_draft, list_my_campaigns, etc.). Modifiers like 'my' or 'posted' are consistently applied, so the naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a UGC campaign platform, covering both brand-side (create, estimate, check status) and creator-side (list campaigns, submit videos, track deliverables) workflows without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycle: brand creates and monitors campaigns, creators discover and submit work, and deliverables are tracked. Minor gaps exist, such as no brand-side list of campaigns and no update/delete operations, but these are not critical dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?