x-twitter

sendDMSMedia events.

post_base_apitools_sendDMSMedia

See details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/direct-messages/sending-and-receiving/api-reference/new-event how to get auth_token and ct0? https://x.com/good6_api/status/1812496182213845482 Group: DMS. Billing per call: 1 Credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ct0`	No
`text`	No
`type`	No
`apiKey`	No
`proxyUrl`	No
`resFormat`	No
`auth_token`	No
`recipient_id`	No
`attachment_type`	No
`quick_reply_type`	No	Returns results with an ID less than (that is, older than) or equal to the specified ID.
`attachment_media_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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 explaining side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. It only mentions billing and links to documentation, without disclosing what happens when this operation is invoked.

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 short, but it is mostly unstructured HTML links and billing metadata rather than a substantive definition. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, with no clear front-loaded purpose or parameter information.

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?

For a media-sending DM tool with 11 unrequired parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It neither explains request structure, required auth flow, expected behavior, nor distinguishes itself from related DM/media tools.

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 schema has 11 parameters but only 9% description coverage, and the one schema-provided parameter description is irrelevant ('Returns results with an ID less than...'). The tool description itself does not explain ct0, auth_token, attachment_media_id, quick_reply_type, or any other parameter meaning.

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 does not state what the tool does with a clear verb and resource; it only contains external links, authentication hints, and billing/group metadata. The name implies sending a DM with media, but the description itself offers no explicit function definition.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like sendDMS, sendDMSV2, or uploadMediaDM. The description provides no usage context, prerequisites beyond an auth link, or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All x-twitter tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources

Need Help?