Skip to main content
Glama

Get TT User

get_tt_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

[read] One TikTok account's profile only (no videos), through the TikTok Trends gateway. Give the numeric user_id (the uid of a list_tt_trends USERS row or a search_tt_videos author; sec_user_id is the optional sec_uid next to it) or the username (unique_id, @ optional; one extra priced search resolves it). A unique_id, @name or profile address put in user_id is read as the username (and a numeric uid put in username as the id), so either field takes either value. Answers user: uid, sec_uid, unique_id, nickname, signature, region, verified, follower_count, following_count, likes_count, video_count, avatar_url, category, verify_reason, bio_link, is_private, create_time, profile_url.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_tt_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNo
usernameNo
sec_user_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the gateway it routes through, the billed fallback resolution, and the exact response keys. It does not discuss error behavior when an account is not found or private beyond exposing `is_private`.

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?

Front-loaded with the read/no-videos scope and identifier sourcing before the long field enumeration. The trailing list of eighteen response keys is dense and slightly run-on, but each element is informative rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so enumerating the returned `user` fields is necessary and done. Input derivation, cost implication, type coercion, and return shape are all covered for a three-parameter read tool, leaving nothing an agent needs unresolved.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does: it defines each of the three fields, states that either field accepts either value form (`@name`, profile URL, numeric uid), and clarifies `sec_user_id` as the optional `sec_uid` companion. This is more than the schema conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetch one TikTok account's profile — and explicitly scopes it ('profile only (no videos), through the TikTok Trends gateway'), which separates it from list_tt_videos/search_tt_videos and from the parallel get_ig_user/get_yt_channel tools.

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?

Tells the agent where to source the identifier (the `uid` of a list_tt_trends USERS row or a search_tt_videos author) and warns that resolving a bare username costs 'one extra priced search'. Missing an explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. when the caller wants videos), though 'no videos' implies that boundary.

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.