Top Search
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Keyword to search for | |
| cursor | No | Cursor to get more videos. Get 'cursor' from previous response. | |
| region | No | Note, this doesn't filter the tiktoks only in a specfic region, it puts the proxy there. Use it in case you want to scrape posts only available for some country. Use 2 letter country codes like US, GB, FR, etc | |
| sort_by | No | Sort by | |
| publish_time | No | Time Frame TikTok was posted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. 'Top Search' reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains. It 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?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. The description lacks any structural elements such as examples, context, or delimitation of scope, making it unhelpfully minimal.
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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and many similar siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for return values, pagination, or how 'top search' differs from the many other search tools in the sibling list.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. While the description adds zero semantic value, the rubric sets a baseline of 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 'Top Search' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It does not specify a verb+resource or distinguish itself from sibling tools like scrapecreators_search and scrapecreators_search_by_keyword.
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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision-making information.
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.