get_v2_feedv2 / Feed Group: v2 / Explore. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cut | No | Sorting parameter. Default is `nf2`. What does it mean? : - `nf2` : For you (You can assume that it brings random popular videos.) - `nf2_top` : Top videos - `nf2_latest` : Latest videos | |
| limit | No | Result limit | |
| cursor | No | You can get subsequent results by entering the `cursor` value taken from the first 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?
The description mentions billing ('1 Credits'), which is a behavioral trait, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, its side effects, or any rate limits. The absence of annotations places the onus on the description, which is only partially transparent.
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 very brief but not well-structured—'v2 / Feed Group: v2 / Explore' is a header-like string that adds little value. The billing line is useful but the overall structure feels like a placeholder.
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?
There is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the tool returns or how the response is structured. It lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full scope, especially in comparison to the sibling feed tools.
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?
The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the meaning of 'cut' and the cursor usage. The tool description adds no additional insight, so the parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema alone.
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 'v2 / Feed Group: v2 / Explore' is cryptic and does not clearly state what the tool does. It fails to describe an action (e.g., retrieve or list) and merely echoes the tool name.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_v1_feed_home). No mention of typical use cases or scenarios where this feed is preferred.
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.
The presence of nearly parallel v1 and v2 endpoints (e.g., get_v1_feed_home vs get_v2_feed, get_v1_profile_details vs get_v2_profile_details) makes it unclear which version an agent should call, and the descriptions don't clarify the differences. Feed-related tools are especially ambiguous with v1 splits into four feeds while v2 has a single feed, making misselection likely.
All tools consistently use the get_ prefix and snake_case, but the resource naming is inconsistent: v1 uses feed_home/feed_images/feed_top/feed_videos while v2 uses feed and profile_feed, and details endpoints vary (post_details vs post_details_and_replies). The v1/v2 prefixing is systematic but creates a mixed set where similar resources have different names across versions.
Sixteen tools is on the higher end but still within a workable range for a social-content API. However, roughly half are duplicated across v1 and v2, so the effective scope is smaller than the count suggests, making the server feel bloated for what it offers.
The server covers the core read-only workflows: feeds, post details, profile info, followers/following, and search. However, there are gaps like missing v2 equivalents for followers/following and no clear guidance on when to use v1 vs v2, which could cause dead ends for agents.