Get tweets posted by a specific Twitter/X user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Number of pages to fetch, 1-20 (default: 1) | |
| username | Yes | Twitter username (without @, max 50 characters) | |
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / pages / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of pages to fetch, 1-10 (default: 1)"New value: +"Number of pages to fetch, 1-20 (default: 1)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, page size, sorting, whether retweets are included, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior. The description only states the basic action and resource.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and the scoping condition immediately after. Every word earns its place.
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 schema documents the parameters well, and this is a fairly simple read-style tool. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the response contains, how pages affect results, or what the sentiment flag changes. The definition is minimally sufficient but leaves notable gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
All three parameters (username, pages, get_sentiment) have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline score of 3 when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get tweets posted by a specific Twitter/X user.' This clearly identifies the tool as a user-timeline reader. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as twitter_user_replies or twitter_tweet_details, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_twitter, twitter_user_replies, or twitter_tweet_details. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'by a specific Twitter/X user.' No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
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.