Post
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The URL of the post to get | |
| get_comments | No | Whether you want to get the first several comments of the post | |
| get_transcript | No | Whether you want to get the transcript of the post |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description 'Post' reveals nothing about side effects, return data, or operational nuances. It fails to provide any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
'Post' is not concise; it is under-specified. A single noun does not constitute an informative description, and the lack of structure forces the agent to rely entirely on the schema and tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a vast array of similar siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the tool's purpose, return values, or how it differs from scrapecreators_post_comments, scrapecreators_posts, and others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (url, get_comments, get_transcript), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is simply the word 'Post', which is not a verb+resource statement and does not explain what the tool does. It essentially restates the tool name without adding any meaning, and is indistinguishable from similar sibling tools like scrapecreators_post and scrapecreators_posts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar scrapecreators_* tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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 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.
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.
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.