Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Set the competitor watch

set_competitor_watch
Idempotent

Set or stop a weekly competitor watch that rechecks ad libraries and reports new ads. Pass every brand to watch (max 5) to replace the list, or an empty list to stop.

Instructions

Set (or STOP) this workspace's standing COMPETITOR WATCH — the weekly job that re-checks each named brand's ad libraries and reports what is NEW since last time. The same watch the web app's Ad Spy ▸ Watching tab manages, and the same one the weekly digest email is sent from (turn that email on/off with update_settings({watchEmail})). This REPLACES the whole watched list, it does not add to it — pass every brand you want watched, every time. Max 5 brands (the server trims past that). Pass an EMPTY list to stop the watch entirely, which also clears the findings. Give a domain wherever you know one: Google Ads Transparency is looked up BY DOMAIN and is skipped for a brand without one, and the domain is what resolves the right Meta page for a brand with an ambiguous name. The run itself spends credits against the ad libraries (roughly 3 per brand on Meta, 1 each on Google and LinkedIn) and is hard-capped per run server-side, so an oversized watch is trimmed rather than allowed to run away. Setting the list is free; only a run spends. runNow:true runs it once IMMEDIATELY (a background job — it spends now) and then keeps the weekly cadence; leave it off and the first check is a week out. The country and the platform mix are NOT settable here — a re-set inherits whatever the pending run already carried (US / Meta for a watch that has never been configured otherwise). Read the findings back with list_watch_findings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runNowNotrue to run one check immediately (spends credits now) instead of waiting a week for the first one
competitorsYesthe brands to watch — the COMPLETE list, replacing whatever was set before. Empty array = stop watching.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.161

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail: it reveals replacement semantics, server-side trimming, credit costs, runNow behavior, and that an empty list stops the watch. However, it also states that stopping the watch 'clears the findings', which directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction with annotations forces a score of 1 and flags an annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and organized into logical behavioral chunks, with very little filler. It loses a point for minor redundancy: the max-5 brand limit and server-side trimming are stated twice in slightly different ways.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers every relevant operational area: set semantics, stop semantics, list replacement, domain importance, credit costs, immediate runs, unsupported settings, and how to read findings back. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Even though the schema already documents competitors and runNow with 100% coverage, the description adds substantial operational meaning: domain lookup behavior for Google and Meta, the max-5 brand trim, the distinction between free setting and credit-spending runs, and the inheritance of country/platform settings. This goes well 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 description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Set (or STOP) this workspace's standing COMPETITOR WATCH'. It defines the tool as managing a weekly job and explicitly differentiates it from related tools by pointing to list_watch_findings for reading results and update_settings for toggling the digest email.

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?

The description clearly explains when to use this tool: to set or stop the standing watch, to replace the watched list, and to trigger an immediate run with runNow. It also gives explicit exclusions ('The country and the platform mix are NOT settable here') and names the correct sibling tools for associated actions, so an agent knows how to route around it.

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