Profile Videos
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | Set to true for a trimmed down version of the response | |
| handle | Yes | TikTok handle | |
| region | No | Region (Country) you want the proxy in. Defaults to US. | |
| sort_by | No | What to sort by | |
| user_id | No | TikTok user id. Use this for faster responses. | |
| max_cursor | No | Cursor to get more videos. Get 'max_cursor' from previous response. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Profile Videos' reveals nothing about behavior. It does not mention pagination (max_cursor), the trim option, proxy/region behavior, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The tool's actual behavior 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only two words and provides no structuring of information. Unlike concise descriptions that pack meaning into short sentences, this one leaves the agent with no functional understanding.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the large sibling context, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how it paginates, what 'trim' does, or how it relates to other TikTok scraping tools. The agent cannot reasonably infer correct usage from this description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: all six parameters (handle, trim, region, sort_by, user_id, max_cursor) have descriptive text in the schema. Per rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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 'Profile Videos' is a bare noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name. It lacks an action verb (e.g., 'scrape', 'get', 'list') and does not specify what data about profile videos is returned. It also does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like scrapecreators_basic_profile or 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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many related scrapecreators_* tools, such as scrapecreators_tiktok or scrapecreators_profile_posts. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.