Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Upload a local file → durable public URL

upload_file

Persist an ARBITRARY user file (image, video, audio, PDF or document, up to 150MB) into Hermoso and get back a durable public URL that EVERY publish, schedule and ad-build tool accepts — post_to_meta / post_to_linkedin / post_to_linkedin_page / post_to_youtube / post_to_tiktok / post_to_pinterest / post_to_x / post_to_reddit / post_to_google_business / schedule_post / upload_meta_asset / upload_google_ads_asset / create_meta_ad / create_linkedin_ads_creative / set_youtube_thumbnail / save_to_drive / save_to_onedrive. THIS IS THE BRING-YOUR-OWN-CREATIVE PATH: it is for files that have NOTHING to do with a Hermoso render (media on the user's desktop, an agency's finished ad, a photo they shot), and it means you can publish, schedule and run ads through Hermoso without generating anything here. Provide exactly ONE source — passing two is an error, never a silent preference: url (ANY public http(s) link — Hermoso fetches it server-side, so nothing crosses this connection and there is no practical size limit; THIS IS THE ONE THAT ALWAYS WORKS, including on the hosted connector), path (a local file — ONLY when Hermoso runs on the user's own machine over stdio/CLI; the hosted connector cannot see their disk), or dataUri (a base64 data: URI — keep it under ~15MB, since the bytes travel over this connection). If the file is already at a public https URL, the Meta, Reddit and ChatGPT-Ads tools take it directly and re-host it safely — but LinkedIn (posts and ad creatives), Pinterest, the YouTube thumbnail and upload_google_ads_asset upload the BYTES themselves and therefore refuse an external host, so run it through here first and pass the URL this returns. When in doubt, use this: its URL works everywhere. (Calling the underlying HTTP route directly? POST /api/upload takes the file's RAW BYTES as the request body with its own content-type — NOT multipart/form-data — or ?url= with no body.) Returns {url, kind, bytes}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoa PUBLIC http(s) URL Hermoso fetches server-side (private/internal addresses are refused, and every redirect hop is re-checked). Works on every surface including the hosted connector, and the bytes never cross this connection — prefer this whenever the file is reachable on the web.
nameNooriginal file name — helps pick the right extension
pathNolocal filesystem path (stdio/CLI only — refused on the hosted connector)
dataUriNobase64 data: URI of the file bytes (data:<mime>;base64,<…>) — bytes travel over this connection, so keep it small

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: size limits (150MB for file, ~15MB for dataUri), server-side fetch for url (bytes never cross connection), security checks (refuses private/internal addresses, re-checks redirects), error on multiple sources, and the raw HTTP fallback. It also mentions the return shape. All this goes beyond the structured fields and aligns with annotations (no contradiction).

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?

The description is long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and the list of accepting tools, then explains the creative path, source modes, and usage notes. Every sentence earns its place (e.g., the HTTP route detail is niche but useful). It could be broken into bullet points for scannability, but it's not padded or redundant, so it loses only a point for structure.

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?

With 4 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and a complex dual-purpose (upload and return a URL), the description covers everything: all parameter modes, size limits, security, when to use, when not to, error behavior, and the return format '{url, kind, bytes}'. It even mentions the raw HTTP route for direct callers. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a rich description (e.g., url mentions server-side fetch and security). The tool description adds extra context that aids selection: 'arbitrary file up to 150MB', 'dataUri... keep under ~15MB', 'passing two is an error', and the 'always works' priority for url. While the schema does much of the work, the description reinforces and adds nuances like the practical size limit for dataUri, justifying a 4 over the baseline 3.

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 specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('arbitrary user file') and clearly defines the outcome: a durable public URL that all publish/schedule/ad tools accept. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'bring-your-own-creative' path versus Hermoso renders, and even names sibling tools that accept its output. The purpose is unmistakable and differentiates from the many sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'When in doubt, use this: its URL works everywhere.' It also details when NOT to use direct URLs (LinkedIn, Pinterest, YouTube thumbnail, upload_google_ads_asset) and instructs to run through this tool first. It explains the three source modes with precise conditions (url always works, path only on local/stdio, dataUri under 15MB) and states that passing two sources is an error. No ambiguity remains.

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