twitter-searchSearch 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.