tweetapi_list_followersRequires 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 list followers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| listId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes quota consumption, one upstream request per call, explicit cursor requests, and that it fetches only a single page. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch one page of public list followers'), and every word adds value. It efficiently covers prerequisites, operational constraints, and pagination in a compact structure.
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?
Given the simple list tool, the description covers key contextual aspects: read-only semantics, one-page limit, pagination requirement, and API key/quota prerequisites. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by saying 'fetch followers,' but it does not describe the response structure or error cases. Overall adequate for a basic list operation.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It only mentions cursor behavior ('must request pagination cursors explicitly') but does not clarify that listId is the Twitter list identifier or explain cursor format/usage. The required parameter listId is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 'Fetch one page of public list followers' with a specific verb ('fetch'), resource ('list followers'), and scope ('one page'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'list followers' rather than user followers or list members, and explicitly mentions pagination behavior.
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 provides operational context such as requiring an API key, consuming quota, and requesting pagination cursors, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list members or user followers. Usage is implied rather than clarified with exclusions or alternative tool names.
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.