Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Save file(s) to Google Drive

save_to_drive

Save a Hermoso render — or ANY file — into the user’s connected Google Drive. Pass a Hermoso render URL as url (or urls[] for several); for a local/external file, call upload_file first and pass the url it returns. Optional folder (created if new) + name. Returns the Drive file(s) with a webViewLink. Needs Google Drive connected (Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ Google Drive — one connection covers Drive, Sheets and Docs). NOTE: Hermoso uses the drive.file scope, so it reaches ONLY the files it created plus any the user explicitly handed over with the Google file picker in the app — never their whole Drive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoa single Hermoso render URL to save
nameNofile name (single save)
urlsNoseveral render URLs (up to 20) to save in one call
folderNoDrive folder name to save into (created if new)

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses that the tool returns a webViewLink and, critically, explains the drive.file scope restriction—that it only accesses files it created or explicitly granted. This is valuable context not available in structured fields and contradicts nothing.

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 with the primary purpose, then progressively adds necessary details (file sources, connector, scope). Every sentence contributes to correct invocation without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's complexity: input types, the upload_file workaround, folder behavior, return value, connector setup, and the significant drive.file scope limitation. With no output schema, it still conveys the return format (webViewLink). Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies that url accepts a Hermoso render URL, urls[] for multiple, and that for local/external files one must call upload_file first and pass its returned URL. It also explains folder creation and name usage, beyond the terse schema 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 action (save) and resource (Google Drive), and specifies it handles Hermoso renders or any file. It distinguishes from siblings like save_to_onedrive by naming Google Drive, and from upload_file by describing the prerequisite flow.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: passing a render URL directly or uploading a local file first via upload_file. It also notes the connector requirement and the scope limitation, giving clear conditions for use without needing to infer.

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