get_tweet_tweetIdReceive all tweet informations and comments by tweetId. ⚠️ For large cursors (many replies you want to fetch) you can use the POST-request to be not limited by the GET-request length limit. Group: Tweet. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweetId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the GET request length limitation and billing cost, but lacks details on authentication, response format, or error handling. However, it conveys read-only nature and a specific constraint.
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 concise, with a clear purpose in the first sentence and a helpful warning about POST usage. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the main function and mentions cursor limitations, but does not describe the response structure or pagination details. Given no output schema, the agent may be uncertain about return format. For a simple tool, it's adequate but not complete.
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 description only references 'by tweetId' without explaining the parameter format or constraints. Schema has no description and 0% coverage, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves all tweet information and comments by tweetId, distinguishing it from sibling tools like favorites/retweets. It also mentions the POST alternative for large cursors, further clarifying its scope.
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?
It explicitly advises using the POST request for large cursors due to GET length limits, and mentions billing per call, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the POST variant.
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.
Most tools target distinct data types, but there is notable overlap: get_search_searchTerm vs post_search_searchTerm and get_tweet_tweetId vs post_tweet_tweetId are functional duplicates, and the three followings variants (get_user_userId_followings, _basic, _ids) have unclear boundaries. This creates ambiguity for an agent trying to select the right tool.
Tool names mix HTTP method prefixes (get_, post_) with resource_parameter structures, and camelCase is embedded in parameters (searchTerm, tweetId, tweetsAndReplies). The pattern is not uniform (e.g., get_user_by_username_username vs get_user_usernames_to_ids), making the naming feel ad hoc and hard to predict.
With 23 tools, the set is on the heavier side. Many tools are redundant (GET/POST duplicates) or overly granular (three followings endpoints), padding the count without adding distinct capabilities. A leaner set of 15-18 tools would be more appropriate for the read-only Twitter data scope.
The server covers the core read-only Twitter data surface well: user info, tweets, media, followers/followings, likes, search, trends, and miscellaneous utilities. The only notable gap is the lack of a direct endpoint for listing a user's followers' details (though that could be composed), and no ability to post or interact, which aligns with the apparent purpose.