Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Clone a static ad (old name)

remix_static

Replicate a static ad image into new branded variants by providing its URL. Use this legacy alias or clone_static to duplicate and adapt winning ads across brands.

Instructions

The OLD NAME of clone_static, kept so agents that already call it keep working. It is the same tool with the same inputs, result and cost; prefer clone_static.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandIdNoa brand id/name from list_brands to clone for; omit to use the active brand
imageUrlYesthe URL of the static ad image to clone

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.227
    • changedInput schema / properties / brandId / description
      Previous value: -"a brand id/name from list_brands to remix for; omit to use the active brand"New value: +"a brand id/name from list_brands to clone for; omit to use the active brand"
    • changedInput schema / properties / imageUrl / description
      Previous value: -"the URL of the static ad image to remix"New value: +"the URL of the static ad image to clone"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.161
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "image": {
-      "description": "the served absolute URL of the remixed ad image",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "model": {
-      "description": "the model label that rendered it",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "residual": {
-      "description": "source-branding sweep result ({clean, note})"
-    },
-    "slots": {
-      "description": "the filled slot map (layout elements swapped to your brand)"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that inputs, result and cost are identical to clone_static, which is useful cost/behavioral context, but it does not explain what cloning actually produces or what authorization it needs.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the deprecation status is front-loaded, followed by the behavioral equivalence guarantee and the preference directive.

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?

For a legacy alias with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the decision-relevant facts: it is equivalent to clone_static in inputs, result and cost, and should be avoided in favor of the canonical name. Only the underlying clone semantics remain unexplained, which is acceptable given the pointer to clone_static.

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% (brandId and imageUrl both documented in the schema), so the description need not describe parameters. It correctly asserts 'same inputs' as clone_static, which is mildly useful, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool is the deprecated alias of clone_static, which conveys the verb+resource by direct reference to the canonical sibling. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to clone_static without opening either schema, though it never independently states 'clones a static ad image'.

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?

Explicit routing: 'prefer clone_static' names the alternative and the condition ('kept so agents that already call it keep working') under which remix_static should still be used. Nothing is left to inference.

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