get_user_userIdThis is the prefered method of getting any information. Receive follower counts, images and more user related data with this endpoint. Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that follower counts, images, and related user data are returned, and mentions billing cost, but it omits authentication expectations, error behavior, rate limits, or response boundaries.
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 short at three sentences and the group/billing details are compact. The first sentence 'This is the preferred method of getting any information' adds little factual value and is not front-loaded with an action verb, making the structure only moderately efficient.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should define return shape and usage context much more fully. It only lists two example data types and doesn't explain how this endpoint relates to the large set of user-related siblings, so an agent may invoke it incorrectly or misjudge what it gets back.
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 has 0% schema coverage for the single userId parameter and adds no explanation about how to obtain or format userId. The schema only lists type 'string', so the agent gets no additional semantic meaning from the description.
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 says the endpoint returns follower counts, images, and other user-related data, so the core purpose is understandable. However, the phrase 'preferred method of getting any information' is overly broad and does not distinguish this general user-details endpoint from the many sibling user-specific endpoints.
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?
The description gives no concrete when-to-use guidance or alternative comparison. It only claims to be the 'preferred method', which is not a reliable heuristic given that sibling tools like get_user_userId_tweets, get_user_by_username_username, and get_user_userId_followers exist.
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.