Search User
get_searchSearch User to Instagram Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Nickname |
instagram-scraper
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose what data is returned, any limitations, or whether it's a search vs direct lookup. Billing mention is non-behavioral. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short, but the phrasing is garbled and includes irrelevant billing info. It seems under-specified rather than concise. Not front-loaded with useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A one-param lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no differentiation from siblings. The description fails to clarify what exactly 'Search User' returns and how it differs from get_info_username or get_user_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with a simple 'user' param described as 'Nickname' with an example. The description adds no more value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search User to Instagram Billing per call: 1 Credits.' awkwardly conflates the tool's function with billing details. It implies searching a user, but the phrasing is unclear ('to Instagram Billing' is nonsensical). It doesn't clearly state it finds user info, and the sibling tools like get_info_username and get_user_id may serve similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. With many similar get_* tools (get_info, get_info_username, get_user_id), there is zero differentiation. The billing note doesn't help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes (e.g., get_posts vs get_posts_username, get_reels_posts vs get_reels_posts_username). The distinction between get_post_info, get_post_info_v2, get_reel, and get_tv_info is unclear from descriptions alone. This will cause frequent misselection.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: suffixes like '_username', '_hd', '_v2', '_id' appear sporadically, and the same resource type is named differently (e.g., 'posts' vs 'post_info' vs 'reels_posts' vs 'tv_posts'). Some tools are meta (get_requests, get_server) and deviate from the data-focused pattern. Overall, no clear naming convention.
Tool Count2/5
With 40 tools, the set is overly large for an Instagram scraper. Many tools are near-duplicates differing only by input type (ID vs username), which could be consolidated. The count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range and feels bloated, though not extreme.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of Instagram data: user info, posts, reels, TV, stories, highlights, comments, likes, followers, followings, hashtag/location/music search, and even server status. Despite some vague tools (get_additional_info, get_basic_engagement), it appears functionally complete for the domain.