twitter-user-tweetsGet 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.
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.