Skip to main content
Glama

hooklayer

by io.github.khan-ashifur

list_watches

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every creator the authenticated user is tracking. Read-only, 0 credits. Returns each watch's id, platform, handle, when it was created + last updated, when the last snapshot was taken, and whether it's active. Does NOT return the snapshot payload itself — call watch_account (idempotent) to refresh a baseline. Use when the user asks 'what am I tracking', 'show my watches', 'list creators'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalNo
watchesNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals response fields, first-class exclusions (snapshot payload), the associated cost (0 credits), and a fallback action (watch_account). Complements annotations without contradiction.

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?

Every sentence adds critical information: purpose, safety/cost note, return fields, exclusions, and usage triggers. Front-loaded with the main action and scoped concisely for a list operation.

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 tool, the description covers behavior, response contents, and exclusions comprehensively. An output schema exists to handle return structure, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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?

Zero parameters make the schema trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level details because none are needed; baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 (list), resource (creators tracked), and scope (authenticated user's), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like watch_account. The description also notes what it does NOT do (no snapshot payload) and references the sibling, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides trigger phrases and use cases ('what am I tracking', 'show my watches', 'list creators') and tells when to use the alternative tool (refresh baseline via watch_account). Covers both when and when-not to use it.

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

All hooklayer 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: analysis, trend research, scoring, creation, and tracking. The lifecycle tools (analyze_account, watch_account, get_changes) are related but clearly delineated by baseline creation vs. comparison. score_hook and predict_virality could be mildly confused since both score content, though descriptions clarify hook-level vs. full-draft scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nine of twelve tools follow the verb_noun pattern (analyze_account, find_viral_template, get_changes, list_watches, match_voice, predict_virality, score_hook, search_videos, watch_account). Three deviate: brief_to_blueprint, trend_pulse, and viral_remix use prepositional or noun-based naming, creating minor inconsistency but not confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools for a short-form content intelligence platform feels well-scoped. The surface covers research (4 tools), creation (3), validation (2), and tracking (3), with each tool earning its place. This sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range for a domain-specific server.

Completeness3/5

The research, creation, and validation workflows are well-covered, but the tracking lifecycle has a notable gap: watch_account and list_watches exist with no unwatch/remove_watch tool, and get_changes implies persistence without a way to manage it. Also missing is a single-video deep-dive tool (analyze_account only covers videos within full account analysis) and direct creator-to-creator comparison.

Resources