Skip to main content
Glama

match_creators

Read-only

Score how well specific creators fit a campaign brief or search intent.

Use this when the user already has candidate creators in mind and wants to evaluate fit (e.g., "rate these 5 creators for a vegan cookbook launch", "which of these is the best match for my crypto audience?"). For each creator the API returns a match score (0-1), a good/neutral/avoid decision, and structured reasons.

Pass candidates in creator_ids (canonical UUIDs) and/or profiles (platform + username). intent_query is the brief the LLM reasons against; intent_context is optional extra context (target audience, brand values, prior collabs).

Use semantic_search_creators when you don't have candidates yet and need topical or niche discovery. Use search_creators first when you only need to resolve rough creator names/handles into candidates. Use find_lookalike_creators when you want creators similar to known good fits.

Examples:

  • User: "Is @niickjackson a fit for Pixel?" -> use this tool after resolving the exact Instagram profile with get_profile; call get_posts first if recent content context is needed.

  • User: "Rate these five creators for a vegan cookbook launch" -> use this tool.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent_query": "<intent_query>",
      "context": "<context>",
      "llm_model": "<llm_model>"
    },
    "name": "match_creators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesExplain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as "a user", "the customer", or "an account". Example: "Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution."
profilesNoCandidate creators identified by platform and username.
llm_modelYesThe exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. "claude-opus-4-8", "gpt-5.2"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass "unknown" — never guess.
creator_idsNoCandidate creators identified by canonical Influship creator UUID.
intent_queryYesCampaign brief or matching intent.
intent_contextNoOptional extra campaign context, audience, brand values, or prior collabs.
conversation_idNoPass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
dataNo
countNo
resultsNo
has_moreNo
not_foundNo
next_cursorNo
suggested_followupsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Pass the exact conversation_id from the server's previous response, unchanged. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it. Keep passing the same conversation_id for the rest of the conversation, including after later user messages or on a different task; do not reset it when the user starts a new request.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "intent_query"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "intent_query",
      +  "context",
      +  "llm_model"
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / next_cursor / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed-world read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the safety burden is covered. The description usefully adds the response contract (0-1 match score, good/neutral/avoid decision, structured reasons), but that is partly redundant with the existing output schema and it says nothing about latency, cost, or batching behavior for up to 100 candidates.

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?

Purpose and the when-to-use block are front-loaded and the alternative-tool routing is packed into compact sentences. The second example ('Rate these five creators for a vegan cookbook launch') largely repeats the first illustrative sentence, so a small amount of content does not earn its place.

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 7-parameter scoring tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the brief-versus-context distinction, both candidate input forms, sibling routing, and prerequisite lookups. Remaining undisclosed fields are operational analytics parameters already fully specified in the schema.

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 and the schema already documents each field including the analytics-only `context` and `llm_model`. The description goes beyond that by clarifying that candidates may be supplied via `creator_ids` and/or `profiles` and by distinguishing `intent_query` (the brief reasoned against) from `intent_context` (optional auxiliary context), which is genuine added meaning but not a large lift over the schema.

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 ('Score how well specific creators fit a campaign brief'), then contrasts it against the three nearest siblings (semantic_search_creators, search_creators, find_lookalike_creators). An agent can pick this tool versus discovery tools without inspecting the schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition explicitly ('when the user already has candidate creators in mind') and gives explicit routing rules for every alternative: semantic_search when you lack candidates, search_creators to resolve rough names, find_lookalike for similar-to-known-good-fits. It also sequences prerequisite calls (get_profile, get_posts) via the examples.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.