scrapecreators_comments
Comments
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the post or reel to get comments from | |
| cursor | No | The cursor to get more comments. Get 'cursor' from previous response. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it is a read operation, how pagination works, or any other behavioral details. The description is completely opaque.
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?
At one word, it is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description does not earn its place for a tool with two parameters and significant sibling overlap.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a one-word description, the tool is contextually empty. It provides no explanation of expected output, error conditions, or how it relates to similar tools, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively.
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%, with both url and cursor well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema alone provides enough meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 is simply the word 'Comments,' which merely restates the tool name. It lacks a verb or specific resource description and fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like scrapecreators_comments_get or scrapecreators_post_comments.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling list and no context, an agent has no way to decide if this is the right tool for obtaining comments.
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.