post_tweet_tweetIdReceive all tweet informations and comments by tweetId. This POST-request allows you to dig deeper into the replies when the cursor is growing. Group: Utilities/Misc. 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 full burden. It discloses that this is a POST request, mentions billing cost (1 credit), and implies a read-like operation ('Receive'). However, it doesn't state auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.
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 the key action and usage scenario in the first sentence, followed by useful metadata (group, billing). No fluff or repetition, though 'tweet informations' is awkwardly phrased. It earns its two sentences.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, usage context, and billing. But it lacks parameter explanation and a clearer description of return format (just 'all tweet informations and comments'). This is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 has only one required parameter, tweetId, with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'by tweetId' but doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., numeric string) or any constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't provide meaningful parameter semantic detail.
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 states the tool 'Receive all tweet informations and comments by tweetId', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The title 'Tweet Details for large cursors' and the clause about digging deeper into replies when the cursor is growing help distinguish it from sibling tools like get_tweet_tweetId, though 'tweet informations' is somewhat vague.
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 indicates when to use this tool: when the cursor is growing, implying pagination or large reply sets. It doesn't name alternatives but gives clear context for when the POST variant is preferable over GET endpoints. There are no exclusions or alternative names, but the condition is specific enough.
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.