x-twitter
Server Details
X (formerly Twitter) posts, profiles, and search for AI agents. No key needed to start.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: account usage info, profile fetch, single tweet details, timeline retrieval, URL resolution, and keyword search. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Five tools follow the 'x_verb_noun' pattern (x_get_profile, x_get_tweet, etc.), but 'get_usage' lacks the 'x_' prefix, creating a minor inconsistency. Plural vs singular (x_get_tweet vs x_get_tweets) is acceptable.
6 tools cover the core read operations for Twitter (profile, tweets, timeline, search, URL resolution, and usage/meta). This is well-scoped and not excessive or insufficient.
The toolkit covers all essential read operations: profile, tweet details, timeline, search, and URL resolution. However, it lacks any write operations (post, delete, like) and does not include account lookup by user ID or follower lists, but these may be out of scope.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_usageCheck credits and recent chargesARead-onlyInspect
Check your balance, plan, limits, and the last 10 charges (receipt ids included). Costs 0 credits and is exempt from the per-minute rate limit, so call it whenever you need to budget. The response includes upgrade_url (give it to your human when credits or plan limits block you; purchases credit this account directly with no login) and manage_url (give it to your human to change or cancel a paid plan in the Stripe billing portal). Trial accounts also get a claim_url that attaches an email so the account can be recovered if the key is lost. Requires an API key: keyless calls have no account, and each keyless response already reports its cost in the usage block. Not for fetching platform data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond readOnlyHint: costs 0 credits, rate-limit exempt, explains upgrade/manage/claim URLs, and keyless vs. keyed behavior. No contradiction with 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?
Front-loaded with main purpose, each sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient.
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?
Fully covers the tool's behavior: no parameters, has output schema, explains URL outputs for different account types, and provides rate-limit information.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing parameters, earning above baseline.
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?
Description clearly states it checks balance, plan, limits, and recent charges, distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_search by specifying it's for budgeting and not for fetching platform data.
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?
Explicitly says 'call it whenever you need to budget' and implies not for fetching platform data, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x_get_profileGet an X profileARead-onlyInspect
Fetch one X account's profile: name, bio, location, website, follower/following counts, tweet and media counts, verification state, and join date. identifier accepts a screen name without the @ (e.g. 'nasa'), a full x.com or twitter.com profile URL, or the numeric account id; numeric strings are treated as ids, and the rare all-digit handle can be forced with by='screen_name'. Costs 4 credits. The returned platform_fields.id is stable across handle changes; store it for repeat lookups. To find accounts by topic use x_search type=people, and to read what an account posts use x_get_tweets; this tool returns no tweets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| freshness | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | Screen name without the @ (e.g. 'nasa'), profile URL, or numeric account id. | |
| max_credits | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value: cost of 4 credits, stability of platform_fields.id across handle changes, and identifier parsing rules (screen name, URL, numeric id, all-digit escape). No contradictions.
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?
Single focused paragraph, front-loaded with return fields, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 single-account profile fetch, description covers input parameters, returned fields, cost, id stability, and alternatives. Output schema exists to document return structure, so description doesn't need to repeat it.
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 coverage is only 25% (only identifier has description). Description compensates with detailed explanation of identifier and the by parameter's escape hatch, but does not mention freshness or max_credits. For low coverage, this is adequate but not complete.
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 has a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('X account's profile'), and lists exact fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by stating that x_get_tweets returns no tweets and x_search finds accounts by topic.
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?
Explicitly states when to use alternatives: use x_search type=people for finding by topic, use x_get_tweets for reading posts. Also clarifies identifier formats and the by parameter for all-digit handles, plus the 4 credit cost.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x_get_tweetGet one tweet with full metricsARead-onlyInspect
Fetch one tweet by id with full engagement metrics: views, likes, retweets, quotes, replies, bookmarks, language, and the quoted tweet inline when there is one. tweet_id is the numeric id from a tweet URL (the digits after /status/) or from any other X tool's results; full tweet URLs are accepted too. Costs 4 credits. Use this to verify engagement before citing a tweet or to read a quoted thread hop by hop. It returns a single tweet, not the conversation around it: for the author's other tweets use x_get_tweets, and to find tweets by topic use x_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweet_id | Yes | Numeric tweet id, e.g. '2054497961162478079', or a full tweet URL. | |
| freshness | No | ||
| max_credits | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tweet_id format (numeric or full URL), mentions cost, states inline quoted tweet inclusion, and clarifies it returns a single tweet. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint true).
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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: main purpose, parameter detail, and usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.
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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and usage. It could briefly mention the optional parameters, but the core functionality is fully described.
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 description provides extra detail for the required tweet_id parameter (e.g., extracting from URL), which adds value over the schema's brief description. However, the optional parameters freshness and max_credits are not explained. With 33% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the main parameter but not fully.
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 one tweet by id with full engagement metrics, listing specific metrics (views, likes, retweets, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming x_get_tweets and x_search for other use cases.
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 usage guidance: 'Use this to verify engagement before citing a tweet or to read a quoted thread hop by hop'. It also explains limitations (returns single tweet, not conversation) and mentions cost ('Costs 4 credits'), helping the agent decide when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x_get_tweetsGet an account's tweetsARead-onlyInspect
Fetch one page of an X account's timeline. identifier is a screen name, profile URL, or numeric id (auto-detected). mode picks the view: posts (default) is the account's own tweets, posts_and_replies includes their replies, highlights is the account's pinned highlights tab. include_retweets (default true) filters retweets out when false. Costs 4 credits per page; a cursor page is a NEW call priced the same way. Returns tweet summaries with engagement counts and a cursor for older tweets. Use this for 'what has X been posting', voice checks before outreach, or drafting replies in an account's register. For keyword search across all of X use x_search; for one specific tweet you already have, x_get_tweet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| freshness | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | Screen name without the @, profile URL, or numeric account id. | |
| max_credits | No | ||
| include_retweets | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost of 4 credits per page and that pagination is priced as new calls, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate read-only and open-world.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then adds useful details; slightly long but no wasted sentences.
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?
Covers main parameters, cost, return format, and sibling differentiation; lacks some parameter details (freshness, max_credits, cursor input) but has output schema.
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?
Explains identifier auto-detection, mode options, and include_retweets default; missing explanation for freshness and max_credits, but compensates for low schema 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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch one page of an X account's timeline' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like x_search and x_get_tweet.
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?
Explicitly says when to use this tool ('what has X been posting', voice checks, drafting replies) and provides clear alternatives for other uses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x_resolve_urlIdentify an X URLARead-onlyInspect
Identify what an X (formerly Twitter) URL points at before fetching it. Give any x.com or twitter.com URL (mobile links, query params, /i/web/status forms are fine); get back {type: profile|tweet, id, handle, canonical_url}. Tweet URLs yield the numeric id for x_get_tweet; profile URLs yield the handle for x_get_profile or x_get_tweets. Costs 2 credits and parses offline without fetching the page. t.co short links cannot be expanded offline and return INVALID_INPUT telling you so; expand them in your own browser step first. Skip this tool when you already have a handle or tweet id: the other X tools accept those directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | An X URL, e.g. https://x.com/nasa/status/2054497961162478079 or https://twitter.com/nasa. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds cost (2 credits), offline parsing behavior without fetching, and error handling for t.co links. No contradictions.
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?
Succinct (~100 words), front-loaded with purpose and return structure, every sentence adds essential context without 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?
Given low complexity, full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, the description covers purpose, return values, usage with siblings, edge cases, and constraints completely.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by specifying acceptable URL forms (mobile links, query params, /i/web/status) beyond the schema's generic description.
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 resolves X URLs to identify their type, and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying which tool to use based on the resolved type (e.g., numeric id for x_get_tweet, handle for x_get_profile).
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (unknown URL) and when to skip (already have handle/tweet id), lists alternatives (x_get_tweet, x_get_profile, x_get_tweets), and warns about t.co short links needing prior expansion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
x_searchSearch X (formerly Twitter)ARead-onlyInspect
Search X by keywords. type picks the mode: recent (default) is the deep chronological sweep and keeps paginating as far as you follow the cursor; popular returns the highest-engagement tweets for the query; people finds accounts and returns a single page (no cursor). Advanced query operators pass through verbatim, e.g. "from:nasa", "min_faves:100", exact phrases in quotes -- there is no separate date parameter, so use since:/until: operators for time windows. Costs 6 credits per page; a cursor page is a NEW call priced the same way, so a deep sweep costs linearly in pages. Returns tweet summaries (text, author with follower count, views, likes, retweets, replies, created_at, url, id) with a cursor. Fetch one tweet's full detail with x_get_tweet and an account's timeline with x_get_tweets. For comment-level sentiment inside topic communities, reddit_search type=comments is usually the sharper instrument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| query | Yes | Free-text keywords; X advanced operators work, e.g. 'claude code from:AnthropicAI since:2026-06-01'. | |
| cursor | No | ||
| freshness | No | ||
| max_credits | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | |
| common | Yes | |
| entity | Yes | |
| platform | Yes | |
| freshness | Yes | |
| data_as_of | Yes | |
| canonical_url | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes | |
| platform_fields | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: credit cost per page, cursor-based pagination (new call per page), return format with tweet summaries, and that advanced operators are supported. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.
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 information-dense but well-structured, with core action upfront. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long due to multiple details and alternative suggestions.
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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema), the description covers return values, cost, pagination, mode differences, and cross-tool references. It provides a complete picture for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, but the description adds rich meaning: explains type modes with defaults, cursor as pagination token, and query supports advanced operators. However, freshness and max_credits are not explained.
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 it searches X by keywords and explicitly distinguishes three modes (recent, popular, people). It also differentiates from sibling tools like x_get_tweet and x_get_tweets, and even suggests reddit_search for alternative needs.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode, explains pagination behavior, credit cost, and how to handle date ranges. Also mentions alternatives for comment-level sentiment analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!