Generate YouTube video ideas with titles, thumbnail concepts, and hooks. Tailored for Arabic YouTube creators and Egyptian businesses. Returns a list of ideas with tags. Costs 80 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Channel topic or brand niche (e.g. 'قناة طبخ مصري', 'business & entrepreneurship', 'skincare brand Egypt') | |
| language | No | Language (default: arabic) | |
| extra_instructions | No | Target audience, video length, style preferences |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (list of ideas with tags) and the credit cost (80 credits), which are useful behavioral details beyond a generic 'generate' statement. It does not mention side effects, but as a generation tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: first states the main action, second narrows the audience, third adds output and cost. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description covers purpose, output components, target audience, and cost. Without an output schema, the mention of 'list of ideas with tags' and 'titles, thumbnail concepts, hooks' provides sufficient understanding for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It does provide context about the tool's purpose (YouTube ideas) that indirectly clarifies the topic parameter, but no extra detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates YouTube video ideas including titles, thumbnail concepts, and hooks. It also names the target audience (Arabic creators and Egyptian businesses), which distinguishes it from generic idea generators like marketing_ideas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tailoring to Arabic YouTube creators/Egyptian businesses implies a specific use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead (e.g., marketing_ideas). Usage is inferred rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: content generation (create_design, generate_document, generate_music, generate_video), strategic planning (ads_analysis, marketing_ideas, media_spending), and social media content (linkedin_post, youtube_ideas, write_copy). Slight overlap exists between 'write_copy' and 'linkedin_post' (both text) and 'ads_analysis' vs 'marketing_ideas', but descriptions clarify the scope.
The naming convention is mixed: some tools use verb_noun (create_design, generate_document, generate_video, write_copy), while others are noun_noun (ads_analysis, content_calendar, linkedin_post, marketing_ideas) or a bare verb (suggest). This pattern is readable but not fully consistent.
With 13 tools, the platform covers a broad set of creative and marketing functions without feeling bloated. Each tool addresses a different content type or strategy aspect, and the count is appropriate for the stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of a marketing campaign, from strategy (ads_analysis, marketing_ideas, media_spending) to content creation (copy, design, video, music, documents) to social media distribution (LinkedIn, YouTube, post ideas). Minor gaps like social media scheduling or advanced image editing exist but are not critical for the core creative workflow.