get_base_apitools_blocksCreateSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/mute-block-report-users/api-reference/post-blocks-create Group: Send Tweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| screenName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like destructive effects (though blocking is non-destructive but impactful), rate limitations, or authentication requirements. The billing info (1 credit) is mentioned, but the agent is left unaware of side effects like removing the user from followers or muting notifications, which are not stated.
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 short and to the point, but it spends characters on a URL and billing note rather than useful behavioral info. It's not overlong, but the structure is not ideal—front-loading minimal value and deferring to an external resource.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is incomplete as it doesn't specify return values, error handling, or the exact blocking behavior (e.g., does it also mute?). The external link is a placeholder but not sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds minimal value. It doesn't explain which parameters are required (e.g., userId vs screenName) or how authentication parameters (ct0, apiKey, auth_token) are used. The external link may help, but the description itself offers no parameter semantics, forcing the agent to rely on guesses.
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 tool name 'blocksCreate' and title 'blocks Create' strongly imply blocking functionality. The description links to Twitter's API reference for POST blocks/create, which explicitly clarifies the action: blocking a user. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like blocksDestroy (unblocking), but the description itself relies on the external link for specificity.
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?
No clear statement about when to use this tool compared to others. The external link mentions the API reference, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, such as needing authentication tokens (ct0, auth_token) or the difference between blocking via userId vs screenName. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases.
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.