get_base_apitools_uploadMediaFileupload media for tweet Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| tweet | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose billing ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'), which is a marginal behavioral trait, but provides no information about upload limits, return values, or side effects of the upload operation. The description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the name.
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 and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, this brevity borders on under-specification—the phrase 'Group: other' seems to be auto-generated metadata, not meaningful explanatory content. It earns its place but barely contributes substance.
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?
For a tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. An agent has no way to know what 'tweet' refers to, what formats resFormat accepts, how ct0 and auth_token are used, or what the upload returns. The description is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 six opaque parameters (ct0, tweet, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token), the description must compensate but provides zero parameter information. An agent cannot infer the required formats, relationships between parameters, or how to use them to make a successful media upload call.
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 'upload media for tweet' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool uploads media for a tweet. This differentiates it from siblings like uploadMediaDM or setBannerImg, though it doesn't explicitly call out those alternatives.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many closely related siblings (uploadMedia, uploadMediaDM, sendDMSMedia), explicit usage context would be valuable, but the description is silent on when versus when-not to use it.
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.