post_base_apitools_setProfileset Profile Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | describe | |
| ct0 | No | ||
| url | No | url | |
| name | No | name | |
| apiKey | No | ||
| location | No | location | |
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| birthdate_day | No | birthdate_day | |
| birthdate_year | No | birthdate_year | |
| birthdate_month | No | birthdate_month |
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention required authentication, whether the operation mutates the user's profile, side effects, rate limits, or return format. 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is financial context, not behavioral transparency.
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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than successful conciseness. It contains only two fragments—'set Profile Group: other' and a billing note—with no structured or useful content for an agent.
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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, what the parameters represent, how success/failure is reported, or what side effects occur.
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 12 parameters and only 58% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate, but it mentions no parameter meanings at all. Several parameters like ct0, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, and auth_token are completely unexplained in the schema, and the description adds nothing.
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 is essentially a restatement of the title: 'set Profile.' It identifies the resource but provides no detail about what setting a profile entails, what fields are affected, or how it differs from sibling tools like setBannerImg or setHeadImg. The 'Group: other' phrase is not explanatory.
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, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer an alternative. The description merely mentions group and billing, with no situational context or exclusions.
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.