Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Mine customer angles

mine_angles
Read-only

Mine real customer language from reviews and social posts to generate a ranked angle bank with verbatim proof quotes, scores, and ready-to-run hooks for your ads.

Instructions

Mine ad ANGLES from real customer language: gathers the customer's own words (Reddit, TikTok, the brand's review page + review-site results) and returns a RANKED angle bank — each angle tagged (pain / outcome / identity / fear / competitive-displacement / social-proof / contrast), 2-5 VERBATIM proof quotes, a 0-100 score with breakdown, and a ready-to-run hook in the customer's own voice. Reads YOUR saved brand (pass brandId to target a specific brand — that switches this key's active brand like use_brand). To tear down a COMPETITOR use competitor_teardown instead. YOUR OWN REVIEWS: pass reviews (a list of review texts, or one pasted block: one per line, numbered, blank-line separated, or a CSV with a review column) and/or reviewsUrl (a CSV, TXT or JSON file from upload_file, or a review page; on a local CLI a file path works too). They are first-class evidence: every quote from them is checked word for word against what you sent and labelled 'your reviews', and a quote that is not verbatim is dropped and counted. useOwnReviewsOnly:true mines only your reviews and gathers nothing public. Limits: 300 reviews, 2,000 characters each, 40,000 in total; over that it is refused at no cost, so send fewer or split into batches. Each angle comes back with next: the exact plan_variations and generate_image arguments that turn it into finished statics (one generate_image per angle = statics with distinct angles). Spends a few credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandIdNoa brand id/name from list_brands to mine for; omit to use the active brand
reviewsNoyour own customer reviews: a list of review texts, or one pasted block (one per line, numbered, blank-line separated, or CSV with a review column)
reviewsUrlNoa URL of your reviews: an uploaded CSV, TXT or JSON file (from upload_file) or a review page. On a local CLI a file path also works.
useOwnReviewsOnlyNotrue = mine only your reviews, no public search (no search credits). Default false = merge with public customer language.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.272
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviews
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "your own customer reviews: a list of review texts, or one pasted block (one per line, numbered, blank-line separated, or CSV with a review column)"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewsUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "a URL of your reviews: an uploaded CSV, TXT or JSON file (from upload_file) or a review page. On a local CLI a file path also works.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / useOwnReviewsOnly
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true = mine only your reviews, no public search (no search credits). Default false = merge with public customer language.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.161
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "angles": {
-      "description": "the ranked angle bank ({category, angle, score, hook_draft, proof_quotes})",
-      "items": {},
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "note": {
-      "description": "why no angles were returned, when the bank is empty",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sourceCount": {
-      "description": "how many customer sources were mined",
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals side effects and constraints: it gathers from Reddit/TikTok/review sites, switches the active brand when brandId is passed, spends credits, enforces review limits with refusal at no cost, and verifies quotes verbatim. This is substantially more behavioral context than the annotations alone provide.

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 dense but well front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes unique information, but it is a single long paragraph that could be slightly improved with bullet points. It is efficient given the tool's complexity, though not the most compact possible.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (angle bank with tags, quotes, scores, hooks, and next-step arguments), plus limits, credit cost, side effects, and input variations. An agent has all essential information to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning to every parameter: brandId changes the active brand, reviews supports multiple formats and includes quote verification, reviewsUrl covers upload sources and local CLI paths, and useOwnReviewsOnly controls public search and credit usage. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mine ad ANGLES from real customer language' and details the output (ranked angle bank with tags, quotes, scores, hooks). It explicitly distinguishes itself from competitor_teardown and use_brand, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it doesn't.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'To tear down a COMPETITOR use competitor_teardown instead' and explains the brandId behavior relative to use_brand. It also clarifies the useOwnReviewsOnly mode and how reviews or reviewsUrl feed the tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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