get_SearchSearch Group: Explore. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | You can use advanced search queries. E.g. dogecoin (from:elonmusk) Check out for more information: https://twitter.com/search-advanced | |
| type | No | Default: Top. | |
| count | No | Number of Tweet results | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for other results |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions billing credits ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is a cost note but does not describe what the tool returns, how results are ordered, or any side effects. The description does not mention that this is a read-only operation, which is a transparency gap for a search tool.
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 just one short phrase plus billing info, which is concise, but the phrase 'Search Group: Explore' is not a proper description of functionality. The billing note is unnecessary clutter for tool selection. A better one-line description would be more useful and still concise.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, but the parameters are well-documented. The description itself adds very little beyond the schema, leaving gaps about what results are returned and how to use advanced features beyond the provided link. It is adequate for a simple search tool but not comprehensive.
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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'q' includes advanced search syntax, 'type' has enum values with default, 'count' and 'cursor' have clear meanings). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal value but does not need to. The 'q' parameter's example and link to search-advanced are particularly useful.
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 says "Search Group: Explore," which identifies it as a search tool but does not specify what resource is being searched (e.g., tweets, users, media). It does not clearly distinguish from siblings like get_v2_UserTweets or get_v2_TweetDetail. The name 'get_Search' and title 'Search' imply a general search, but the purpose is vague beyond 'Explore.'
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other search-related siblings like get_AutoComplete or get_v2_UserTweets. There is no mention of use cases, alternatives, or exclusions. The 'Explore' label is generic and does not help the agent decide.
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.
Several tools appear to do the same thing, such as get_v1_1_Followers vs get_v2_Followers and get_v2_Tweet vs get_v2_TweetDetail. The descriptions are too brief to clarify differences, and multiple user lookup tools (get_v1_1_Users, get_v2_UserByRestId, etc.) create confusion.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing camelCase (get_ShortUrl), snake_case (get_email_search_by_username), and version prefixes with varying formats (get_v1_1 vs get_v2). No uniform verb_noun pattern is followed.
With 32 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given many redundant variations across API versions. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for too many tools, and many could be consolidated.
The server is entirely read-only (all tools are GET), missing write operations like posting tweets, following users, or sending direct messages. This is a significant gap for a Twitter server, and even read coverage has redundancies rather than comprehensive distinct endpoints.