tweetapi_user_by_usernameRequires 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 public user profile by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable operational context: requires an API key, consumes normal quota, makes exactly one upstream request per call, and notes that pagination cursors must be explicitly requested. This goes well beyond the 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?
Four short sentences, each providing distinct information (auth, quota, request count, pagination, purpose). The pagination sentence is slightly cryptic but not wasteful. Overall, the description is efficient and front-loaded.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, cost, safety, request behavior, and purpose. It doesn't detail error handling, but the annotations and simplicity make this adequate.
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 only defines 'username' with type string and minLength. The description adds meaning by specifying 'by username' and 'public user profile', clarifying that the lookup is by username and limited to public profiles. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 states 'Fetch one public user profile by username' with a specific verb (Fetch), resource (public user profile), and method (by username). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tweetapi_user_by_id and tweetapi_user_by_usernames.
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 clear context: it's for a single public profile lookup by username, requires an API key, and consumes normal quota. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose sentence and tool name make the use case clear, and no exclusions are needed.
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.