post_base_apitools_setHeadImgByFileset Head Img by file Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| tweet | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| headUrl | No | head online url | |
| headType | No | person or web3 | |
| 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?
With no annotations available and no behavioral details in the description, the tool's side effects, required permissions, or error handling are entirely undisclosed. The agent is given no information about what happens when the operation executes, such as whether it modifies the profile permanently or requires a specific authorization token.
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 consists of a single sentence that repeats the tool name plus tangential billing information ('Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.'). It fails to be front-loaded with useful 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?
For a tool with 8 inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thoroughly inadequate. It omits essential context about input requirements, processing steps, output format, or side effects. The agent cannot reasonably infer correct usage from this description alone.
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 coverage is only 25% (only headUrl and headType have descriptions), yet the tool description provides no additional explanation for the remaining six parameters (ct0, tweet, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token). The description adds zero value beyond the schema, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
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 'set Head Img by file' merely restates the tool name without adding any actionable detail. It does not specify what action is performed (e.g., updates profile header image), what the file refers to, or how it differs from sibling tools like setHeadImg or setBannerImg.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions (e.g., file format, authentication requirements) that would help an agent decide when to invoke 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.