Search a username across social networks and public sites to find associated accounts. Filter by tags, choose an output format, or scan all available sites.
Search for a username across social networks and sites
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter sites by tags (e.g. photo, dating, us) | |
| format | No | Output format | txt |
| username | Yes | Username to search for | |
| use_all_sites | No | Use all available sites instead of top 500 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.20Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says the tool scans hundreds of sites (a slow, network-heavy operation), that output is written as a report file whose type is chosen by the format parameter, or anything about reliability or rate limits.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, for a tool with four parameters and file-generation behavior, this level of terseness is arguably under-sized rather than optimally concise.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what calling this actually produces. It omits that results arrive as a formatted report artifact and says nothing about scope or duration, leaving a meaningful gap for a multi-parameter search tool.
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 all four parameters including the tags and format enums are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search for a username') plus scope ('across social networks and sites'), which is materially clearer than the bare name. It does not distinguish itself from the only sibling, parse_url, though those two tools are different enough in kind that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a username to trace. There is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of cost/time tradeoffs for the use_all_sites toggle, and no explanation of when tag filtering is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.