get_creatorFetch a saved X creator's full profile, niche, audience, engagement analysis, and deals by username. Use it to assess sponsorship fit and price sponsored posts.
Full saved creator profile and analysis, plus their deals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | X handle, with or without @ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content scope (profile + analysis + deals), but says nothing about behavior on a missing username, pagination of the embedded deals, or freshness of the analysis.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its contents with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does list profile, analysis, and deals. That is adequate but thin: it does not indicate the shape, depth, or volume of the embedded deals list, nor error behavior for invalid handles.
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%, and the single 'username' parameter is well documented in the schema (X handle, with or without @). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Get saved creator') and enumerates the payload ('profile and analysis, plus their deals'), which separates it from list_creators. However it does not clearly differentiate itself from the sibling analyze_creator, whose name also implies producing analysis, so the agent cannot fully disambiguate on purpose alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_creators or analyze_creator or get_deal. The agent must infer the retrieval context purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.