tweetapi_community_tweetsRequires a TweetAPI API key and consumes normal TweetAPI quota. Read-only; one upstream request per call. The model must request pagination cursors explicitly. Fetch one page of public community tweets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| sortBy | No | Relevance | |
| communityId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds substantial behavioral details: it requires an API key, consumes normal quota, makes exactly one upstream request per call, and explicitly requires the model to request pagination cursors. This provides valuable context about cost, authorization, and pagination mechanics.
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 two sentences and every phrase earns its place: requirement, quota, read-only, one upstream request, explicit cursors, and the core action. It is appropriately sized and not padded.
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?
The tool is a simple paginated read, but there is no output schema and zero parameter descriptions in the schema. The description tells us about one page and pagination, but does not clarify the return format, the meaning of sortBy, or how to access subsequent pages beyond 'request cursors explicitly.' It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It mentions 'cursors' and 'one page' but does not explicitly map that to the 'cursor' parameter, nor does it explain 'sortBy' or the format of 'communityId'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema variables already imply.
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 clearly states the action: 'Fetch one page of public community tweets,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like tweetapi_community_search, which may also return community tweets, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description implies usage by stating it fetches community tweets and provides operational constraints (API key, quota, one page, explicit cursors). However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as community_search or community_details, nor any 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.
Several tools have overlapping or unclear boundaries: tweetapi_user_followers_v2 and tweetapi_user_followers_list both fetch followers with nearly identical descriptions, and tweetapi_docs_search overlaps with tweetapi_endpoint_lookup. Additionally, tweetapi_user_about_account and tweetapi_user_by_username both retrieve user info by username, creating confusion.
All tools share the 'tweetapi_' prefix and follow a consistent resource_specific pattern (e.g., tweetapi_tweet_details, tweetapi_user_followers_ids). The use of lowercase with underscores is uniform, and there is no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 38 tools, the server is overstuffed. Many tools are redundant (e.g., three follower variants, three documentation-related tools), which inflates the count beyond what is needed for a read-only Twitter API wrapper. A leaner set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.
The read-only API surface is well covered: tweets (details, metrics, quotes, retweets, translate, search), users (profiles, followers, following, subscriptions, verified followers), lists, communities, and spaces. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct 'get user mentions' or list lookup by slug), but core workflows are fully supported.