Skip to main content
Glama

twitr.sh

by sh.twitr

x_draws

Run a provably fair giveaway on X/Twitter: pick crypto-random winners from a tweet's replies, with retweet, follow, hashtag, keyword, minimum-follower, and account-age conditions. Fixed price set upfront from your estimated entry count.

Guidance: tweetUrl required. Optional: winnerCount (default 1), backupCount, uniqueAuthorsOnly, mustRetweet, mustFollowUsername, filterMinFollowers, filterAccountAgeDays, filterLanguage, requiredHashtags/Keywords/Mentions. Pricing is fixed upfront from the estimatedEntries you set (default 1000, max 10000) — set it near the tweet's reply count; that number is enforced as a hard cap. Payment settles before the draw runs, so pay only when you intend to run it; a failed draw does not auto-refund (contact support). Idempotency-Key header required — retries with the same key replay the original result instead of re-charging.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tweetUrlYesFull tweet URL (https://x.com/user/status/ID).
backupCountNo
mustRetweetNo
winnerCountNo
filterLanguageNo
estimatedEntriesNoExpected replies inspected — drives the fixed price (default 1000).
requiredHashtagsNo
requiredKeywordsNo
requiredMentionsNo
uniqueAuthorsOnlyNo
filterMinFollowersNo
mustFollowUsernameNo
filterAccountAgeDaysNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses provably fair randomness, crypto-random selection, fixed pricing, hard cap on estimatedEntries, payment settlement, no auto-refund, and idempotency key behavior. This is thorough but could mention error handling or validation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately concise, front-loading the purpose and then systematically covering parameters, pricing, and idempotency. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and 13 parameters, the description covers most aspects but omits what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, draw ID). It explains pricing and idempotency fully, but the lack of return value information leaves a gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Only 15% of parameters have schema descriptions, so description must compensate. It does so by listing all optional parameters (backupCount, mustRetweet, etc.) and explaining estimatedEntries (default 1000, max 10000) and pricing. This adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a provably fair giveaway on X/Twitter: pick crypto-random winners from a tweet's replies' with specific conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_compose or x_read, which have different functions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: requires tweetUrl, lists optional parameters, explains pricing model (fixed upfront, hard cap), and warns about payment and refund policy. It implicitly suggests when to use (for giveaways) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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

All twitr.sh toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (write, read, search, monitor, compose, etc.), but some overlaps exist: x_read includes trending topics while x_radar is dedicated to trends, and x_timeline provides engagement lists that overlap with x_extract's extractors. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent might initially confuse the boundary between x_read, x_search, and x_timeline for tweet retrieval.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names share the x_ prefix and are single words, but mix verb forms (read, search, write, compose, extract, monitor) with noun forms (draws, radar, inbox, lists, profile, timeline). The convention is predictable and uniformly lowercase, but a fully consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern would be clearer. Minor deviation: x_communities vs x_community are nearly identical and refer to reading vs managing.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool covers a distinct functional area of X/Twitter: reading, writing, searching, monitoring, extracting, composing, community management, etc. The count feels appropriate for the broad scope of the server, neither bloated nor thin.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major X/Twitter interactions comprehensively: fully capable read (x_read, x_search, x_timeline), write (x_write, x_profile), community and list operations, real-time monitoring, bulk extraction, direct messaging, media, trends, and even AI-assisted composition and giveaways. Obvious gaps are minimal, such as no list creation/management commands, but the core lifecycle of tweets, users, communities, and accounts is well covered.

Resources