SocialSwarm

Generate X/Twitter thread variants

generate_thread_variants

Turn an article URL or a block of text into several complete X/Twitter thread drafts. Each variant uses a different hook (curiosity, challenge, story, and at 5 variants also stat and question), and every tweet comes back with its character count already checked against the 280 limit. Returns drafts for a human to review — it does not post anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sourceUrl`	No	Required when sourceType is 'url'. Note that paywalled or bot-blocked pages will fail to fetch — fall back to sourceType 'text' with the article body.
`sourceText`	No	Required when sourceType is 'text'. At least ~100 characters.
`sourceType`	Yes	Use 'url' to fetch and extract an article, 'text' to pass content directly.
`variantCount`	No	How many thread variants to generate. Only 3 or 5 are accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`variants`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not post anything, only returns drafts for human review. It also notes character-count checking. This covers the most important behavioral aspects for a generation tool, though it could mention error handling for paywalled URLs (already in schema) or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with key details (hooks, character limit, non-posting). Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (generating multiple thread variants) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers: input source types, variant hooks, character limit validation, and the non-posting nature. It lacks detail on how the output is structured (handled by output schema) and does not mention the variantCount enum range (but schema covers that). Overall, very solid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., 'different hook', 'character count checked') but these are more about output characteristics than parameter meaning. It does not add semantic details beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('turn... into several complete X/Twitter thread drafts') and distinguishes the tool by stating it returns drafts for review, not posting. Since there are no sibling tools, no further differentiation is needed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (none exist). However, it implicitly suggests use for generating multiple thread drafts from URL or text, and it clarifies that the tool does not post, which acts as a boundary. No explicit when-not-to or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SocialSwarm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?