Twitter MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'deleted tweets' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires prior setup (like a watch), rate limits, authentication needs, what happens if no deleted tweets exist, or the format of returned data. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. There's no wasted text, and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main flow, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (fetching deleted tweets likely involves monitoring or API constraints), no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'deleted tweets' entails (e.g., recently deleted, all-time), how results are returned, or any dependencies on other tools like 'add_twitter_watch'. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'username' is clarified as 'Twitter username (without @)', and 'limit' specifies 'Maximum tweets to return (default 20, max 100)'. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, providing practical usage details. However, it doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., username validation).

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 deleted tweets from a Twitter/X user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deleted tweets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_twitter_user_tweets' (which presumably gets regular tweets). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'search_twitter'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must be monitored first), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'get_twitter_user_tweets' or 'search_twitter' beyond the 'deleted' aspect. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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