Skip to main content
Glama

Influship

by io.github.Influship

search_creators

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a creator by name/handle, while preserving legacy semantic creator search.

Use this as the default creator lookup tool when the user gives a creator-ish string but not a canonical creator UUID: a handle, partial handle, display name, creator name, or profile-ish text. This is cheap, fast, and backed by the creator lookup index.

If the user gives an exact handle on a specific platform (for example "@niickjackson on Instagram"), prefer get_profile first because it returns the full platform profile. If you need to resolve a rough creator name or partial handle first, use this tool with query_type: "creator_lookup".

For backward compatibility, this tool still accepts the old semantic-search fields (platforms, follower/engagement filters, creator_kinds) and routes legacy calls to the semantic endpoint unless the query clearly contains a handle/profile URL. For new topical/niche discovery calls such as "fitness creators in NYC" or "vegan recipe creators with high engagement", prefer semantic_search_creators because its name is explicit and less likely to be confused with exact creator lookup.

Examples:

  • User: "Find @cris" -> use this tool with query "cris" and query_type "creator_lookup".

  • User: "Who is that fitness coach called Jane?" -> use this tool with query "Jane" and query_type "creator_lookup".

  • User: "Pull @niickjackson on Instagram" -> use get_profile with platform "instagram" and username "niickjackson".

  • User: "Find news creators with 1M+ followers" -> use semantic_search_creators, not this tool.

Returns either autocomplete-style creator lookup results or legacy semantic results, depending on routing. Use returned creator IDs with get_creator, find_lookalike_creators, or match_creators; use returned platform usernames with get_profile or get_posts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum results to return.
queryYesNatural-language semantic discovery query by topic, niche, audience, geography, or content style. Do not pass exact handles or usernames here; use get_profile, lookup_profiles, or autocomplete_creators instead.
scopeNoWhich linked platforms to include in each lookup result.all_platforms
platformNoOptional platform to narrow username matching.
verifiedNoWhen set, only return verified or unverified creators.
platformsNoPlatforms to search. Omit for all.
query_typeNoUse creator_lookup for specific names/handles and semantic_discovery for topical/niche discovery. Auto routes exact handles and profile URLs to lookup, and keeps legacy semantic-search behavior otherwise.auto
creator_kindsNoOptional creator kind filter. Omit for no creator-kind filter.
max_followersNoMaximum follower count.
min_followersNoMinimum follower count.
max_engagement_rateNoMaximum engagement rate as a percentage from 0 to 100.
min_engagement_rateNoMinimum engagement rate as a percentage from 0 to 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context about dual routing: it can return either autocomplete-style lookup results or legacy semantic results depending on the query, and it preserves backward compatibility with legacy fields. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is longer than average but well-structured with a clear purpose, usage guidance, examples, and return-value notes. Every section carries useful information for a tool with dual behavior; minor redundancy could be tightened but complexity justifies the length.

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?

Given the tool's 12 parameters, dual routing, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description is highly complete. It explains return types, downstream tool chaining, and the legacy fallback behavior, giving an agent all context needed to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all 12 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining when to use query_type 'creator_lookup' versus 'semantic_discovery' and showing examples with exact query strings. However, the schema's query description contradicts the tool's purpose by saying 'do not pass exact handles or usernames here', which the description does not explicitly correct, creating some ambiguity.

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 this tool finds a creator by name/handle while also preserving legacy semantic search. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_profile for exact handles on specific platforms and semantic_search_creators for topical discovery, and it provides illustrative examples.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use as the default creator lookup for creator-ish strings, prefer get_profile for exact handles on a specific platform, and prefer semantic_search_creators for new topical/niche discovery. Concrete examples map user requests to the correct tool and query_type.

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