get DMS Init
get_base_apitools_getDMSInitIdV2get DMS Init Group: DMS. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No |
x-twitter
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's behavior, but it reveals nothing about side effects, read/write nature, authentication requirements, or what the call does. The only extra statement, 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' is a billing detail, not a behavioral disclosure. This is severely inadequate for any tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, this is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no structure, front-loading, or prioritization of critical information. The text 'Group: DMS' and billing note add little value, and the entire entry could have been a single useful sentence about the tool's purpose.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needed to be comprehensive but is virtually empty. It fails to explain what is returned, what DMS Init means in this context, or any side effects. This is completely inadequate for an agent to effectively and safely use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists six parameters (e.g., ct0, apiKey, cursor) with only their names and no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to clarify any parameter's purpose or format. Given the low coverage, it was essential for the description to compensate, which it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'get DMS Init' simply restates the tool name with no explanation of what 'DMS Init' means or what action it performs. The additional text 'Group: DMS' provides no semantic value. This is a textbook tautology, failing to clarify the resource or operation beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDMS or getDMSListV2. The description offers no use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This amounts to a complete lack of usage direction, though not misleading enough to warrant a 1.
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.