twitter-readRead a single tweet by URL or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweet | Yes | Tweet URL or tweet ID | |
| text_only | No | Return only {id, text}. Rarely worth it for a single tweet; leave false unless you already know the author and URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / text_only / descriptionPrevious value: -"If true, return only id and text to save tokens."New value: +"Return only {id, text}. Rarely worth it for a single tweet; leave false unless you already know the author and URL."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 further behavioral context such as return format, rate limits, or authentication needs, so it provides minimal added value beyond the 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 concise sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.
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 only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap, though a brief note about return shape could have made it slightly more complete.
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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description merely repeats that tweet can be a URL or ID, adding no new semantic 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with an explicit resource ('a single tweet') and input method ('by URL or ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like twitter-thread, twitter-user-tweets, 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?
The description clearly indicates this tool is for reading a single tweet, implying when it should be used for one-off lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
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.