post_base_apitools_sendDMSV2sendDMSV2 Group: DMS. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| media_id | No | media_id from [uploadMediaDM] | |
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| recipient_ids | No | ||
| conversation_id | 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 explaining behavior. It does disclose a cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and a category ('Group: DMS'), which is slightly more than nothing, but it omits any side effects, authentication requirements, or what actually happens when invoked. The behavioral disclosure is almost nonexistent.
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 very short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It wastes the little space it has by repeating the tool name and giving generic info that doesn't help an agent understand or invoke the tool correctly.
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 10-parameter, apparently mutation-capable tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It provides no information about return values, errors, media handling, or how to build a valid request. It is impossible to use safely based on this description.
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 only 1 of 10 parameters having a schema description (media_id referencing uploadMediaDM) and the description adding no parameter-level information, there is almost no help for the agent. The tool description does not explain what any parameter does, despite the low schema coverage (10%).
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 merely restates the tool name 'sendDMSV2' and adds only 'Group: DMS' and billing info. It does not explain the verb or resource beyond what the name already implies, and it fails to distinguish from siblings like sendDMS or sendDMSMedia. This borders on tautology.
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 the many sibling DM-related tools (sendDMS, sendDMSMedia, getDMS, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, workflows, or alternatives, leaving the agent without any contextual clues.
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.