Hosted MCP for X/Twitter and Reddit. 12 read-only tools, no API keys, free during beta.
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.
Average 3.5/5 across 9 of 10 tools scored.
Each tool is uniquely distinguished by platform prefix (reddit vs twitter) and specific action (get a post, get posts, search, etc.). No two tools have overlapping purposes, even within the same platform.
Tool names consistently use lowercase with underscores and a platform prefix, but the pattern is slightly mixed: Reddit tools use 'get' and 'search' as verbs, while Twitter tools include nouns like 'news', 'thread', and 'user-tweets' alongside verbs. Still, names are predictable and readable.
With 10 tools covering two major social platforms, the count is well-scoped. Each tool serves a distinct, meaningful purpose, and no tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool set provides strong read coverage for both Reddit and Twitter, including search, post/thread retrieval, and user timelines. However, it lacks any write or interaction capabilities (e.g., posting, commenting, liking), which is a notable gap for a social media server and could limit agent workflows.
reddit-get-postGet Reddit PostAGet detailed content of a specific Reddit post with comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Reddit post ID | |
| subreddit | No | Subreddit name for faster lookup | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and title per post to save tokens. | |
| comment_limit | No | Number of comments to return (default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some context beyond the annotations by mentioning 'detailed content' and 'with comments', but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or the effect of parameters like text_only and comment_limit. The annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, so the description contributes modest extra context.
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 sentence of ten words, with no unnecessary repetition or padding. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the core purpose in an extremely concise manner.
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 absence of an output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'detailed content' without specifying the return structure or how comments are included. However, the full parameter schema and annotations cover the input and safety aspects, making the tool minimally adequate for an agent to invoke it, though expectations about output remain unclear.
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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (post_id, subreddit, text_only, comment_limit), achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 that the tool retrieves a specific Reddit post and its comments, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Reddit post'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reddit-get-posts (plural) and reddit-search by emphasizing 'specific post' and 'comments', making its purpose unambiguous.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over reddit-get-posts, reddit-search, or other siblings, nor does it state any prerequisites like having a post ID. Usage context is only implied by the word 'specific'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reddit-get-postsGet Subreddit PostsBGet posts from a subreddit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort: hot, new, top, rising | hot |
| count | No | Number of results to return (default 10) | |
| subreddit | Yes | Subreddit name without r/ prefix | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and title per post to save tokens. | |
| time_filter | No | Time filter for top sort: hour, day, week, month, year, all | week |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention return format, sorting behavior, pagination, or any side effects. Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, so there is no contradiction, but the description itself is uninformative.
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 concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not clarify what the response contains or any limitations (e.g., only returns titles, no comments). However, the tool is straightforward and the comprehensive input schema compensates for missing output details, making it adequate for a basic read-only list.
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%, with all five parameters having descriptions. The description does not add any extra semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'posts from a subreddit'. The 'subreddit' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit-get-post (single post) and reddit-get-user-posts (user posts).
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reddit-get-post or reddit-search. The intended use is implied only by the tool name and description, with no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reddit-get-user-commentsReddit User CommentsBGet comments submitted by a specific Reddit user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort: hot, new, top, controversial | new |
| count | No | Number of results to return (default 10) | |
| username | Yes | Reddit username without u/ prefix | |
| time_filter | No | Time filter: hour, day, week, month, year, all | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). It simply restates the function without disclosing pagination, return format, or any potential edge cases.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words, well-structured for an AI agent to parse.
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 read-only tool with a well-documented schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally complete. It could mention sorting or count behavior, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make the one-liner sufficient.
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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It adds no extra detail, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high 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?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('comments submitted by a specific Reddit user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit-get-user-posts and reddit-get-post. It is specific and actionable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reddit-get-user-postsReddit User PostsBGet posts submitted by a specific Reddit user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort: hot, new, top, controversial | new |
| count | No | Number of results to return (default 10) | |
| username | Yes | Reddit username without u/ prefix | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and title per post to save tokens. | |
| time_filter | No | Time filter: hour, day, week, month, year, all | all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function, such as pagination, return format, rate limits, or the token-saving effect of text_only.
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 sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. 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?
For a simple read-only tool, the schema and annotations cover most operational details, and no output schema is needed. However, the description omits usage context and sibling differentiation, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, with each of the 5 parameters clearly described. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Get posts submitted by a specific Reddit user' uses a clear verb and resource, and 'specific Reddit user' helps distinguish it from generic post tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like reddit-get-posts or reddit-get-user-comments, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 such as reddit-get-posts, reddit-search, or reddit-get-user-comments. The description only states what it does, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reddit-searchSearch RedditBSearch Reddit for posts matching a query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort order: relevance, hot, top, new, comments | |
| count | No | Number of results to return (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| subreddit | No | Limit search to a specific subreddit | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and title per post to save tokens. | |
| time_filter | No | Time filter: hour, day, week, month, year, all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or return format. The description is essentially a restatement of the title with no additional operational details.
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 fluff. It earns its place but is extremely brief, lacking any additional structure or guidance that could aid the agent.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what results look like, but it only states that it returns posts matching a query. It does not mention default sort/time filter behavior or result fields, leaving the agent to infer from parameter descriptions and annotations.
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 6 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb 'search' and the resource 'Reddit posts matching a query', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit-get-post and reddit-get-posts that fetch specific posts. It provides a specific action and target, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage when a keyword-based search is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like reddit-get-posts. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, though the verb 'search' offers some implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
twitter-newsTwitter NewsBGet trending news from X/Twitter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of news items to return (default 10) | |
| category | No | Optional tab filter — one of: for-you, news, sports, entertainment, trending |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds little beyond the purpose; it does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior around the count parameter. However, since annotations cover the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. There is no redundant information or filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate but does not explain what a returned 'news item' looks like or how the category filter behaves. Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail about return values would improve completeness.
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 input schema documents both parameters (count and category) with full descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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's purpose: 'Get trending news from X/Twitter.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('X/Twitter'), and a scope ('trending news'). While this distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter-search or twitter-read, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5 score.
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 such as twitter-search or twitter-read. The description simply states what it does, without providing context on preferred use cases or exclusions. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
twitter-readRead TweetARead a single tweet by URL or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweet | Yes | Tweet URL or tweet ID | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and text to save tokens. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the word 'Read' and does not contradict the annotations. Missing extras like return format handling or rate limits mean it is neutral, not enhanced beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no filler words or redundant details. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise and well-structured tool documentation.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is sufficient to guide invocation. It covers the core behavior and the schema handles parameter details. It would be a 5 if it explicitly mentioned the text_only option or response shape, but those are reasonably inferable from the schema, so 4 is appropriate.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters: 'tweet' is described as 'Tweet URL or tweet ID' and 'text_only' includes its purpose. The description's phrase 'by URL or ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, so it earns the baseline score of 3 without extra contribution.
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 action ('Read'), the resource ('a single tweet'), and the input method ('by URL or ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter-thread, twitter-search, or twitter-user-tweets, which operate on multiple tweets or different access patterns.
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 context for when to use this tool: when you have a specific tweet URL or ID and need to retrieve that single tweet. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing implies its scope compared to siblings that handle threads, searches, or user timelines. This is clear context without explicit alternatives, fitting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
twitter-searchSearch TwitterASearch X/Twitter for tweets matching a query. Returns token-optimized results with engagement metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of results to return (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and text per tweet to save tokens. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful context about output behavior ('token-optimized results with engagement metrics'), which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict any annotations and provides additional detail about the response format.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and key output characteristics. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every phrase 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?
Given the tool's relative simplicity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and output nature. The schema handles parameter details, and annotations handle safety. The description could be slightly more explicit about pagination or the text_only option, but those are already documented in the schema. The overall package is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (query, count, cursor, text_only). Since all parameters are well-documented in the schema, the description's lack of parameter-specific detail is acceptable.
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's function: 'Search X/Twitter for tweets matching a query.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tweets'), and the mention of 'token-optimized results' and 'engagement metrics' further clarifies its purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter-user-tweets or twitter-news, which focus on specific subsets or content types.
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 context for when to use the tool: whenever a general search of tweets is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions when compared to sibling tools. The absence of a direct comparison is why it does not receive a 5, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it for search tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
twitter-threadRead ThreadARead an entire tweet thread/conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweet | Yes | Tweet URL or ID of any tweet in the thread | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and text per tweet to save tokens. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety traits are known. The description adds 'entire' and 'conversation' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what exactly counts as a conversation (e.g., replies vs. quotes).
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 clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward read operation and front-loads the core purpose.
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 absence of an output schema and the existence of sibling tools, the one-line description is somewhat sparse. It doesn't mention return format, pagination behavior, or how to differentiate this from twitter-read, leaving room for interpretation.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters: tweet (URL/ID), cursor (pagination), and text_only (token-saving mode). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a distinct resource ('entire tweet thread/conversation'), making its purpose immediately clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter-read (single tweet) and twitter-search.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description states what the tool does but leaves the choice of tool entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
twitter-user-tweetsGet User TweetsAGet recent tweets from a specific X/Twitter user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of tweets to return (default 20) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response | |
| handle | Yes | Twitter handle (without @) | |
| text_only | No | If true, return only id and text per tweet to save tokens. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'recent' and 'specific user', but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether retweets are included. It provides slight scoping beyond the annotations but not rich behavioral insight.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and every word is essential. No wasted text; the structure is clear and immediately scannable.
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 tool is simple and benefits from strong annotations and full parameter schema, but the description is thin. It lacks details on response structure, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'recent' (e.g., does it include retweets?). It is adequate for a basic read tool but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the schema fully documents parameters. The description itself does not add any extra semantic detail about count, cursor, or text_only, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get recent tweets from a specific X/Twitter user' uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('recent tweets from a specific X/Twitter user'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like twitter-search or twitter-read, which have different scopes (searching all tweets or reading a single 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit comparison to sibling tools like twitter-search or twitter-thread.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.