Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Start here: what Hermoso can do and what it costs

hermoso_capabilities
Read-only

Probe what this Hermoso account can do RIGHT NOW: available image/video model ids + their exact credit costs, aspect ratios, video durations, the recipe ids, and the canEdit/canAvatar flags. Call it when you need a specific model id, an exact cost, or a capability you are not sure of. It is NOT a prerequisite for rendering: generate_image, generate_video and render_ad all run with model omitted and route to the server’s own default. Read-only, free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free.' It adds useful context beyond annotations: the response is a live snapshot ('RIGHT NOW'), it carries exact credit costs, and it is not a prerequisite for rendering. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence immediately conveys the tool's purpose and payload; the second gives usage conditions and an important exclusion. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema fields or wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only capability probe with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the exact kinds of information returned, states when to call it, and clarifies that rendering works without it. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which makes parameter semantics trivially satisfied. The description appropriately focuses on the returned capabilities rather than parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Probe') and a clear resource (this Hermoso account's current capabilities: model ids, credit costs, aspect ratios, durations, recipe ids, flags). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming generate_image, generate_video, and render_ad as tools that do not require it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit call conditions: when you need a specific model id, exact cost, or are unsure of a capability. It also states when NOT to use it as a prerequisite, naming the rendering tools and explaining they route to server defaults without it. This is clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Hermoso toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources