GitHub public profile — login, type User|Organization, email when public, followers (1 credit). Costs 1 credit. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cache | No | Set true to serve from the 24h response cache (0 credits on hit). Default false — always fetch fresh. | |
| username | Yes | GitHub username or profile URL, e.g. getify or https://github.com/getify. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses genuinely useful behaviors beyond the schema: the 1-credit cost, that empty results and failures are never charged, and the 24h cache semantics with default-always-fresh. Rate limits and error handling are not covered, but the cost/cache/billing disclosure is substantive and well beyond what structured fields provide.
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?
Four compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Minor redundancy: '1 credit' appears in both the first sentence ('followers (1 credit)') and the second sentence ('Costs 1 credit'), which is the only wasted increment.
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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core facts needed to invoke it correctly: returned fields, cost, cache behavior, and the billing-on-failure policy. Missing only explicit sibling routing and error behavior details, which are minor for a simple profile fetch.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cost context to cache=true (free on hit, fresh by default) that goes slightly beyond the schema's cache description, but it adds nothing material for username beyond what the schema already provides ('GitHub username or profile URL'). The schema does the heavy lifting here.
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 states a specific resource (GitHub public profile) and enumerates the returned fields (login, type User|Organization, email when public, followers), which distinguishes it from sibling GitHub tools like github_followers, github_repositories, and github_activity. An agent can infer what data it returns without opening the schema.
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?
The field listing implies when to use this tool — when a user's profile identity, type, email, or follower count is needed — but it never names an alternative or states exclusions. With many github_* siblings present, explicit routing guidance would materially help selection, so the guidance stays at the implied level.
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.
The platform-prefix convention keeps most of the 178 tools clearly separated, but several clusters are genuinely ambiguous: tiktok_live_info is explicitly described as 'Identical to TikTok Live', instagram_basic_profile and instagram_channel_details both return profile stats, and facebook_profile_posts overlaps with facebook_profile_reels. The generic 'Summarizer' descriptions for facebook_summarize, instagram_summarize, and tiktok_summarize provide no disambiguating detail at all.
The dominant snake_case platform_resource_suffix pattern is followed remarkably consistently across 178 tools (e.g. youtube_channel_videos, tiktok_search_users, reddit_subreddit_posts). Minor deviations exist: the same creator resource is called 'channel' in some tools (tiktok_channel_details, instagram_channel_posts) but 'profile' or 'user' in others (facebook_profile_posts, twitch_user_videos, linnkme_profile); link-in-bio tools mostly use _page but linkme uses _profile; and the video_summarize/video_transcript pair lacks a platform prefix.
At 178 tools this is far beyond what any agent can efficiently navigate in a single flat namespace, and even individual platform subsets exceed reasonable bounds (TikTok alone has ~34 tools, YouTube ~25). The sheer breadth of the multi-platform scope partially justifies the count, but the server would be far more usable split into per-platform servers.
The read-only data surface is impressively thorough: nearly every platform has profile + content + search + comments coverage, and TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are covered end-to-end including shops, ads, transcripts, and summaries. Notable gaps are minor: Twitter has no keyword search tool, LinkedIn lacks comments, and Reddit has no user-profile endpoint, but none of these create dead ends for the server's core data-retrieval purpose.
