Skip to main content
Glama

Influship

by io.github.Influship

Compare creator fit

render_creator_comparison

Use this when the user has 2–4 canonical creator IDs and a specific campaign brief. It fetches current creator details, scores each creator against the brief, and renders a side-by-side comparison. This may consume Influship account or API usage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoOptional brand constraints or evaluation context.
creator_idsYesTwo to four canonical creator IDs to compare.
campaign_briefYesSpecific campaign, audience, product, and desired creator fit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewYes
briefYes
titleYes
creatorsYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description warns that the tool 'may consume Influship account or API usage,' which is useful cost-related context. However, annotations do not include readOnlyHint, leaving the possibility of side effects unclear; the description does not clarify whether any persistent state changes occur or how the rendering process behaves in detail.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and contains no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input requirements, process, and a cost caveat. It could be more thorough by noting when not to use this tool or how the output relates to other render tools, but it remains sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the qualifiers 'canonical' and 'specific' but does not meaningfully enrich understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool fetches current creator details, scores each against a campaign brief, and renders a side-by-side comparison. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_creator_profile (single profile) and search_creators (discovery).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly opens with 'Use this when the user has 2–4 canonical creator IDs and a specific campaign brief,' providing clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the trigger conditions are well-defined.

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

All Influship 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: `autocomplete_creators` and `search_creators` both claim the exact same example query ('Who is that fitness coach called Jane?') as their primary use case, creating direct routing conflicts. `get_creator` and `get_profile` also overlap heavily for exact platform+username lookups, with descriptions admitting the choice depends on whether 'profile metrics are the main need' — a thin distinction. `search_creators` further muddies things by dual-routing to legacy semantic search, making it a hybrid that competes with both `autocomplete_creators` and `semantic_search_creators`.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: `get_*` covers record fetching, with clear singular/batch pairs like `get_instagram_post`/`get_instagram_posts` and transcript variants. Minor deviations exist (`semantic_search_creators` prefixes a modifier, and `autocomplete_`, `find_`, `match_`, `lookup_`, `render_` each introduce different verbs), but the style is uniform and the verb typically reflects the operation type.

Tool Count3/5

At 28 tools the server is heavy, but the scope is genuinely broad — three platform-specific data surfaces (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube), each requiring profile/video/transcript/listing operations, plus creator search, matching, and rendering. The count is inflated by redundancy, though: four `render_*` tools that could collapse into one parameterized tool, and batch variants of the Instagram raw-data endpoints. It is borderline acceptable for the platform-multiplied domain rather than chaotic bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full read-only creator workflow: fuzzy lookup (autocomplete/search), exact profile fetch (get_profile/lookup_profiles), discovery (semantic_search/find_lookalike), fit scoring (match_creators), content evidence (get_posts), and presentation (render_*). Notable gaps include no Instagram-specific profile endpoint (odd given TikTok/YouTube have dedicated ones), no YouTube comments, and no audience-demographic data, but agents can complete realistic workflows without dead ends.

Resources