get DMS update
get_base_apitools_getUpdateDMSV2get DMS update 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
D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it does not. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, or what data is returned. The only hint is 'get' implying read, but there is no information about pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The billing note ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') is a cost disclosure but not behavioral.
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?
The description is extremely short (one sentence plus billing), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context and does not earn its place; it provides no actionable information beyond the tool name. There is no structure that helps the agent quickly understand the tool's purpose or usage.
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 a complex DMS-related operation with 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return value, pagination, authentication needs, or how it differs from similar tools. The tool is impossible to use correctly without external documentation.
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%: none of the six parameters (ct0, apiKey, cursor, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) are explained in the description. The schema only provides type 'string' and a title identical to the name, offering no semantic meaning. The description adds no value for parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles (e.g., what is 'cursor' used for? What is 'resFormat'?).
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 DMS update' is vague; it uses a generic verb 'get' without identifying what 'DMS update' precisely entails (e.g., fetching DMS updates for a user? polling for new direct messages?). It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like getDMS, getDMSListV2, and getDMSInitIdV2, which also relate to DMS. The 'Group: DMS' and billing info add no functional clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDMS, getDMSListV2, or sendDMS. Without context, an agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how it differs from other DMS-related 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.