flayr

Generate hooks (Hook Studio step 2)

hooks_generate

[writes flayr data · write scope] Writes a batch of draft hooks (on-screen card + spoken line) from the confirmed offers, claims-checked; blocked ones come back in dropped, unsaved. Charges Embers once per call (refunded when nothing usable comes back). Needs the Pro plan or higher. (Wraps POST /api/v2/hook-studio/hooks/generate.)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "hooks_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No
`angles`	No	e.g. pain, outcome, curiosity, proof.
`topics`	No
`bodyIds`	No	Bodies (from POST /api/v2/hook-studio/bodies/map) the hooks should lead into.
`brandId`	No	A brand id from GET /api/v2/brands. Required for an account-wide key; a brand-bound key may omit it.
`formats`	No	e.g. question, bold claim, number, POV.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses cost behavior, refund conditions, plan requirements, write scope, claims-checking, and that blocked hooks come back in `dropped` unsaved. These are meaningful operational details for a non-idempotent write tool.

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 front-loaded with the write scope and core action, then adds prerequisites and cost behavior without filler. The endpoint wrapper note is compact and useful.

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?

It covers the main things an agent needs to call this safely: write scope, confirmed-offer prerequisite, claims checking, plan requirement, Ember cost, and dropped result handling. It is slightly incomplete on successful return structure and on how to use the optional parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema already documents angles, bodyIds, brandId, and formats, while count and topics lack schema descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning such as how to choose angles, topics, formats, or count.

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 action and resource: it writes a batch of draft hooks consisting of an on-screen card and spoken line. It also scopes the input to confirmed offers and claims-checked content, which clearly distinguishes it from hooks_list and hooks_update.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for use: Hook Studio step 2, from confirmed offers, needs Pro plan or higher, and charges Embers once per call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond noting blocked hooks are returned unsaved.

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

All flayr 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?