get_creatorA Roblox UGC creator: how often their releases have ended up profitable, how long that typically took, and their biggest items. Creators with too few releases come back unrated rather than scored — treat that as unknown, not as bad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Creator name. Omit if giving creator_id. | |
| creator_id | No | Numeric creator id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does disclose an important edge case: creators with too few releases come back unrated rather than scored, and that should be treated as unknown, not negative. It also communicates the output theme, though it does not detail error behavior or return structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences that front-load the core value and then add the critical unrated caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output categories and the key edge case. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing what happens when both parameters are omitted or conflicting, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool sensibly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the name and creator_id parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as precedence or mutual exclusivity, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (a Roblox UGC creator) and the kind of data returned: profitability frequency, time to profitability, and biggest items. It is distinct enough from siblings by being a per-creator lookup, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from rank_creators or other comparison tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rank_creators or get_item_details. The description implies it is for individual creator track records, but it never states the selection criteria or when a different sibling would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map to a distinct resource/action, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate rank_creators from get_creator and player rankings from player holdings. The only notable overlaps are find_deals as a specialized filter of search_items and get_market_cap vs get_market_stats, though the descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (find_*, get_*, rank_*, search_*). No mixed conventions or vague names like 'process' or 'execute' appear.
12 tools cover a read-only market data domain without bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct query type: search, detail, rankings, aggregates, deals, recent items, and articles.
The surface covers core workflows: search/screen the catalog, drill into items, evaluate creators and players, check market aggregates, find deals, and retrieve guides. Minor gaps like item-level historical price series and filtering a creator's full catalog are not explicitly exposed, but agents can work around them with search_items and get_item_details.