tweetapi_tweet_details_by_idsRequires a TweetAPI API key and consumes normal TweetAPI quota. Read-only; one upstream request per call. The model must request pagination cursors explicitly. Fetch public tweet details for up to 200 tweet IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Comma-separated string or array of tweet IDs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the API key requirement, quota consumption, the one-upstream-request behavior, and the need for explicit pagination cursor requests. This adds meaningful operational behavior not captured by 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 concise with four short sentences, each providing distinct information: auth, read-only/quota, pagination behavior, and the main action. It is front-loaded with requirements and ends with the core purpose, but could be tightened slightly.
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 simple bulk tweet lookup with good annotations and a self-describing schema, the description covers key constraints (API key, quota, one request, pagination, max 200, public details). No output schema exists, but the tool's return is implied; the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema already provides a full description of the 'ids' parameter, including comma-separated string or array format. The description adds the 'up to 200' limit, which is also present in schema's maxItems, so added value is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool fetches public tweet details for up to 200 tweet IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'tweetapi_tweet_details' by emphasizing the batch size and the by_ids suffix in the name.
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: requires API key, consumes quota, one upstream request per call, and explicitly instructs the model to request pagination cursors. It does not explicitly name an alternative for single-tweet lookups, but the bulk context is clear.
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.