Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Which hooks and subjects are getting traction

post_performance
Read-only

Aggregate published posts by hook, subject, format, channel, media, or hour to show which creative drives engagement within each channel; ranks best/worst posts, skips verdicts under 5 posts.

Instructions

Aggregate this brand's published posts to answer WHICH HOOKS AND SUBJECTS WORK. Groups by hook (default), subject, format (recipe), channel, media format or posting hour, reports the engagement RATE within each channel, and ranks the best and worst POSTS in each channel. Describe a post by the creative it carried (what it shows, its format, its link), not by its caption — the caption is the least important part of a post. THREE THINGS IT DELIBERATELY WILL NOT DO, and you should repeat them rather than paper over them: (1) it never sums metrics across channels — a LinkedIn impression and a TikTok view are different units, so every comparison is within one channel; (2) it SUPPRESSES a verdict below 5 measured posts and says so, because a confident recommendation from 3 posts is worse than none; (3) a post with no recorded hook (published outside Hermoso, or backfilled without a creation match) counts toward channel and format totals but never votes on which hook works. Present the finding verbatim if there is one, and the reason if there is not. Read-only, 0 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisNowhat to group by — default hook; recipe = the format of the creative
channelNorestrict to one channel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.227
    • changedInput schema / properties / axis / description
      Previous value: -"what to group by — default hook"New value: +"what to group by — default hook; recipe = the format of the creative"
    • changedInput schema / properties / axis / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "hook",
-  "subject",
-  "channel",
-  "media",
-  "hour"
-]New value: +[
+  "hook",
+  "subject",
+  "recipe",
+  "channel",
+  "media",
+  "hour"
+]
  2. Addedv0.1.161

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses three concrete behavioral rules: metrics are never summed across channels, verdicts are suppressed below 5 measured posts, and posts lacking a hook count toward totals but never vote on hook effectiveness. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral traits that structured fields cannot express.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence carries operative content (grouping behavior, ranking output, the three caveats). It is dense and slightly long with some repetition of 'within each channel', but for a multi-axis analytical tool the length is largely earned.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return shape itself, and it does: engagement RATE per channel, ranked best/worst posts per channel, and a 'finding' field to quote verbatim. Both optional parameters are fully covered by the schema, leaving no meaningful gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it states the default is 'hook', spells out the full axis menu including 'recipe = the format of the creative', and implies the channel parameter's role via 'within each channel'. This goes modestly beyond the schema text.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource ('Aggregate this brand's published posts') and the exact question it answers ('WHICH HOOKS AND SUBJECTS WORK'), then enumerates the grouping axes. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling analysis tools like collect_post_metrics or list_published_posts because it frames itself as an aggregation/ranking tool rather than a raw metrics fetcher.

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 when the output is applicable and how to present it (present the finding verbatim, repeat the three limitations rather than paper over them), and notes it is read-only and costs 0 credits. However, it never names a sibling alternative (e.g., diagnose_posts or collect_post_metrics) or states an explicit when-not-to-use, so routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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