scrapecreators_clip
Clip
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Twitch clip URL |
xpay✦ Marketing Collection
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Clip" discloses nothing about side effects, return data, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The tool could be anything from fetching clip metadata to posting a clip, with zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single word is technically concise, but it is under-specification, not efficient communication. It does not convey any information beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is extremely simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is still grossly incomplete. An agent cannot infer what data is returned, whether the operation is safe, or how it differs from related tools. The bare minimum would be a phrase like 'Fetch details for a Twitch clip by URL'.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage, with the only parameter 'url' described as 'Twitch clip URL'. According to the rubric, this warrants a baseline of 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter information. However, the description does not clarify the expected URL format or any constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Clip" is a noun, not a verb phrase, and merely restates the tool name. It gives no indication of what action the tool performs (e.g., fetch, scrape, download) on the Twitch clip, and it does not distinguish the tool from the many sibling tools like scrapecreators_twitch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when to select this tool.
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.
TDQS
C2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tool set has significant overlap and ambiguity, particularly within the 'scrapecreators_' prefix where many tools appear to target similar social media platforms and content types (e.g., 'scrapecreators_posts', 'scrapecreators_posts_get', 'scrapecreators_post', 'scrapecreators_post_get'). Additionally, tools like 'tavily_research' and 'tavily_search' have overlapping purposes with 'web_search_exa', making it difficult for an agent to distinguish when to use each. While some tools like 'get_credits' or 'ideogram_v3' are distinct, the overall set is confusing due to redundant functionalities.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent across the tool set. There is a mix of snake_case (e.g., 'get_credits'), kebab-case (e.g., 'find-hooks'), and verbose prefixes (e.g., 'scrapecreators_'). The 'scrapecreators_' tools themselves vary in structure, with some using underscores and others not, and there are duplicate names with slight variations (e.g., 'scrapecreators_ad_details' vs. 'scrapecreators_ad_details_get'). This lack of a predictable pattern makes the tool set chaotic and hard to navigate.
Tool Count1/5
With 124 tools, the count is extremely high and inappropriate for the server's purpose, which appears to be marketing and social media data collection. This many tools suggests poor scoping, likely due to redundancy (e.g., multiple scraping tools for similar platforms) and overlapping functionalities. A well-scoped server in this domain should have far fewer tools, typically in the range of 10-30, to avoid overwhelming agents and ensure clarity.
Completeness4/5
Despite the high tool count and redundancy, the server covers a broad range of marketing-related functions comprehensively. It includes tools for social media hooks, content validation, SEO analysis (e.g., backlinks, keywords), voice archetypes, copywriting frameworks, and extensive scraping across multiple platforms. There are no obvious major gaps for the marketing domain, as it supports data gathering, content creation, and analysis across various networks and metrics, allowing agents to perform core marketing workflows effectively.