Skip to main content
Glama

captapi

by io.github.CDCStream

kick_clip

Get a Kick clip — source + stages/ms, 7d clip cache, Evomi→Webshare→Decodo→Apify. Flat 1 credit. Costs 1 credit. Empty results and failures are never charged. Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit (default always fresh).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesKick clip URL for one enriched clip (e.g. https://kick.com/{channel}/clips/clip_…), or channel input for recent clips[]: kick.com/{name}, kick.com/@{name}, @{name}, or {name}. The URL platform must match this endpoint's platform. Do not pass cross-platform URLs, e.g. YouTube to TikTok, Instagram to Facebook, LinkedIn to X/Twitter, or Pinterest to Rumble.
cacheNoSet true to serve from the response cache (default TTL). Default false — always fetch fresh. Prefer cacheMaxAge when you need 1d–30d freshness control.
limitNoChannel mode only — max recent clips to return (default 30, max 100). Ignored when url is a clip. Flat 1 credit. No cursor — Kick returns a single page.
cacheMaxAgeNoMax age of a cached response: 1d, 3d, 7d, 14d, or 30d. When set, enables caching with that TTL.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses flat pricing, no charge for empty results/failures, a 24-hour cache option, a 7-day clip cache, and the proxy chain. It stops short of describing output structure, side effects, or rate limits, but the disclosed cost and caching behavior are genuinely valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it contains direct redundancy: 'Flat 1 credit' and 'Costs 1 credit' say the same thing. The proxy chain and cache details earn their place, but the duplicate pricing sentence is clear waste.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the most decision-relevant context: cost, failure charging policy, caching semantics, and the execution pipeline. It does not explain return shape, but it does preview 'source + stages/ms' and the schema fully covers parameter inputs.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful extra detail for cache=true ('free 24h cache hit') and the default freshness behavior, but it does not enrich url, limit, or cacheMaxAge beyond what the schema already says.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Get a Kick clip' — and adds distinguishing detail: source plus stage timings, cache behavior, and proxy chain. It clearly identifies this as the Kick-specific clip tool, separating it from twitch_clip and other platform tools by name and content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through the Kick-specific naming and description, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated. The cache guidance ('Pass cache=true for a free 24h cache hit') gives operational direction, but the description does not say when to prefer this tool over twitch_clip or other platform-specific tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All captapi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources