Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Check ad policy

check_ad_policy

Validate ad copy against Meta's Advertising Standards before you run it. Returns a pass/fix/block verdict quoting Meta's policy and a compliant rewrite.

Instructions

Pre-flight ad copy against Meta's REAL, live Advertising Standards before you run it — a flat 1-credit check. Pulls Meta's actual policy pages and returns a verdict (pass / fix / block) where every flagged issue QUOTES Meta's own policy text verbatim plus a compliant rewrite that keeps the sell. It's a check, not an edit — it never changes the creative. Especially worth running for regulated-adjacent categories (health/supplements, weight-loss or beauty results claims, finance/crypto/insurance, alcohol, dating, gambling) or ANY strong/absolute/guaranteed claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
copyYesthe ad copy / script / on-screen text to check
claimsNothe claims / proof points the ad makes
categoryNothe product category — helps pick the relevant policy pages
imageDescriptionNoa description of the creative / image when relevant

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.161
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "anchors": {
-      "description": "the Meta policy pages consulted ({url, …})",
-      "items": {},
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "findings": {
-      "description": "flagged issues ({severity, issue, policy_quote, fix_suggestion, where_in_ad})",
-      "items": {},
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "summary": {
-      "description": "one-line verdict summary",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "description": "pass / fix / block",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavior the annotations don't: a flat 1-credit cost, that it pulls Meta's live policy pages, the exact return shape (pass/fix/block verdict with verbatim policy quotes and a compliant rewrite), and that it is non-mutating for the creative. This is rich context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint flags and compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the cost, then layers in return behavior and use cases. Every sentence earns its place, though the emphasis-heavy single paragraph (caps, em-dashes) is slightly longer than needed.

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?

Despite having no output schema and four parameters, the description covers cost, data source, return verdict, and non-mutation behavior, plus which inputs matter most. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, warranting the baseline 3. The description adds only marginal semantic help by implying the category parameter should map to regulated-adjacent verticals; it adds no format or value guidance beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Pre-flight ad copy against Meta's REAL, live Advertising Standards') and the exact deliverable (a pass/fix/block verdict). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling generation/analysis tools by framing itself as a pre-publication policy gate and a 'check, not an edit.'

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?

Gives strong when-to-use guidance: run it before you publish, and especially for regulated-adjacent categories and absolute/guaranteed claims. It also draws a clear functional boundary ('it never changes the creative'). It stops short of naming a competing sibling (e.g., score_ad, plan_ad) or stating when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit alternatives of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools