Viral Manager

get_account_recipes

Read-only

What works on ONE of the org's own accounts (My Accounts): its recipes, i.e. the concepts (the precise hook / idea of a video) that made at least 2 viral posts on THIS account in the last 30 days, with at least one in the last 14 days (3+ = confirmed recipe, 2 = lead to confirm). Most recent first: viral_count_7d and viral_count_14d say how many of them are from the last 7 / 14 days. Each recipe lists its viral posts (proofs) with their multiplier. A concept that works on one account often fails on another: suggest it for this account only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "get_account_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	Yes	Account (username, display name or id from list_my_accounts)
`platform`	No	Disambiguates when the same username exists on both platforms	all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the 30-day / 14-day / 2-post inclusion thresholds, the 3+ vs 2 tiering, most-recent-first ordering, and what each result contains (viral_count_7d, viral_count_14d, proofs with multipliers). Only pagination/result-size behavior is left unstated.

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 definition and thresholds before the interpretive caveat, and every clause carries information. The single dense paragraph is somewhat run-on and could be split for scanability, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the per-recipe counts, the 7d/14d fields, and the attached proofs. For a two-parameter read-only tool, almost everything an agent needs to call and interpret it is present.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form. The description reinforces that the target must be one of the org's own accounts but adds nothing about the platform parameter's disambiguation role or accepted identifier formats beyond what the schema says; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource with explicit scope: recipes (concepts) that produced at least 2 viral posts on ONE of the org's own My Accounts within 30 days. The parenthetical definition of 'recipe' plus the thresholds (3+ confirmed, 2 lead) make the tool's output unambiguous and clearly distinct from list_viral_posts or get_my_account_stats.

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?

Usage framing is implied through the caveat that a concept working on one account often fails on another, so results should only be suggested for this account. However, it never names alternatives (list_viral_posts, summarize_my_accounts, get_my_account_stats) or states when to pick this tool over them, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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

All Viral Manager 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?