Get detailed information for a single tweet by its ID. Returns full content, engagement metrics, and author info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweet_id | Yes | Numeric tweet ID | |
| get_sentiment | No | Add AI sentiment analysis (Plutchik emotions, dominant_emotion, intensity, and positive/negative/neutral polarity) to each result. Adds a small per-page surcharge. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation, but it does not disclose potential limitations, auth needs, rate limits, or the sentiment analysis surcharge (though that is in the parameter schema). It is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short, information-dense sentences with front-loaded verb and resource. No filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return content adequately. It could specify more about output structure, but 'full content' sufficiently conveys expectation.
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 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 gets detailed information for a single tweet by ID, and specifies the return contents (full content, engagement metrics, author info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter_tweet_comments or twitter_user_tweets.
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 purpose implicitly indicates when to use (when detailed single-tweet info is needed), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like twitter_tweet_comments or twitter_tweet_quotes. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped by platform and resource (e.g. search_twitter vs twitter_user_tweets vs twitter_tweet_details). A few pairs like twitter_tweet_comments vs twitter_user_replies or facebook_page_posts vs search_facebook_posts could cause minor confusion, but descriptions generally clarify the distinction.
The dominant pattern is snake_case with a platform_prefix_resource suffix, and search_* consistently marks search operations. Minor deviations include noun-style names like amazon_best_sellers and place_photos, and the odd get_ skill/comments tools, but the overall convention is predictable.
74 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP server, even for a multi-platform API aggregator. The breadth is justified by the many platforms covered, but an agent will face a very large action space, and this could reasonably be split into per-platform servers.
The server provides strong lifecycle coverage for its read-only domain: search, profile/details, posts, and engagement data across most platforms. Gaps exist for some platforms (e.g. no LinkedIn person profile, no Facebook event details, no Truth Social profile/search, no Reddit subreddit-specific tools), but the core workflows are well covered.
