get_base_apitools_loginlogin by userName and passwrd Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| apiKey | No | ||
| faCode | No | ||
| backCode | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| screenName | No |
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'login by userName and passwrd' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which does not disclose what happens on success/failure, whether credentials are stored, or any side effects. The billing note is trivial and 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It includes a billing note that is not useful for tool selection, and the phrase 'Group: other' is unclear. The description does not earn its place as it provides no actionable information.
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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the login flow, what the response contains, or how to handle authentication. The tool is a login operation with significant complexity, and the description fails to address any of it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. The schema only provides titles (e.g., 'email', 'apiKey', 'faCode'), but the description does not clarify which are required, how they relate to 'userName and passwrd', or what formats are expected. The description mentions 'userName' and 'passwrd' but the schema has 'email' and 'password', creating ambiguity.
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 'login by userName and passwrd' is a tautology of the tool name and title, providing no additional clarity about what the tool does beyond restating the name. It does not specify the resource or action beyond 'login', and it fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_base_apitools_login2FA or post_base_apitools_loginPost.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and the sibling tools include other login-related tools (e.g., login2FA, loginPost) that could be confused with this one.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.