Twitter MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what happens if the ID is invalid, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief with two sentences: a purpose statement and parameter documentation. While efficient, the parameter section could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, but the structure feels slightly disjointed rather than fully cohesive.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'Twitter article' is versus tweets, how results differ from search tools, error conditions, or return format. For a retrieval tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by naming 'article_id' as 'Twitter article ID', but doesn't explain what format this ID takes (numeric, alphanumeric, URL), where to find it, or provide examples. It compensates slightly but inadequately for the coverage gap.

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 resource 'Twitter article by ID', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_twitter_user_tweets' or 'search_twitter', which might also retrieve Twitter content. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_twitter_user_tweets' and 'search_twitter' that might retrieve similar content, there's no indication whether this tool is for specific article IDs, whether it's faster/more precise, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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