get Topic Carousel List.
get_base_apitools_TopicListV2get Topic Carousel List. Group: List. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No |
x-twitter
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a cost detail, not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It includes a redundant repetition of the title and a billing note that is not useful for tool selection. While there is no wasted prose, the brevity is not a virtue here because it omits essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, what the parameters mean, what the return value looks like, or any usage context. For a tool with this level of ambiguity, the description is wholly inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'proxyUrl' and 'resFormat' at all. The schema provides only titles and an example for resFormat, but no meaning or usage context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess what these parameters do.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'get Topic Carousel List' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not specify what a 'Topic Carousel List' is, what data it returns, or how it differs from other list-related tools like get_base_apitools_listByUserIdOrScreenName or get_base_apitools_listLatestTweetsTimelineV2. The purpose is vague and lacks a specific verb-resource combination beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 alternatives. The description only mentions 'Group: List' and billing, which provides no context for selection. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent without any basis to choose this tool over similar list-fetching tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
D1.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
The set is full of confusing variants such as get_/post_ prefixed duplicates of the same endpoints, competing V1/V2 versions of the same action (e.g., followersList vs. followersListV2), and poorly described tools like CommunitiesSearchV2 and getCt0 that give no clear unique purpose. Agents would frequently need to guess between similar tools for a single task.
Naming Consistency1/5
Naming is chaotic, mixing camelCase (getDMS, likeV2), PascalCase (CreateNoteTweet, CommunitiesMemberV2), and inconsistent prefixes (gettools_*, get_*, post_*) with duplicated operations. The 'get_/post_' prefixes appear to indicate API method rather than action, but they are applied inconsistently, with some tools appearing under both and others only once. There is no predictable verb_noun pattern throughout.
Tool Count1/5
With 107 tools, the server is extremely large, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch, and this count is inflated by duplicates (many get_/post_ twins) and overlapping V1/V2 variants. Even the unique tool set is likely around 60-70, which is still an unwieldy surface for an agent to negotiate. This severely disrupts coherence.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers most core Twitter/X domains: tweets, likes, retweets, follows, DMs, search, communities, lists, and profile management. However, it is cluttered with duplicates and lacks some obvious pieces like mute/unmute operations or a direct 'update tweet' action, and several tools appear to be thin wrapper variations of the same endpoint. Coverage is broad but not cleanly organized.