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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns KOL followers but doesn't describe what constitutes a KOL (e.g., criteria like follower count, verification status), how results are formatted (e.g., list, count, pagination), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 core purpose, followed by a clarifying sentence and parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the structure is logical. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter note into the main flow, but it's still efficient.

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 (retrieving specialized follower data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a KOL is, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). For a tool that likely involves API calls and data processing, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent 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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It defines 'username' as 'Twitter username (without @)', which clarifies formatting but doesn't explain validation (e.g., length, allowed characters) or provide examples. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates slightly but remains basic. The baseline is 3 due to low parameter count, but more detail would improve utility.

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 KOL (Key Opinion Leader) followers for a Twitter/X user' and elaborates with 'Returns which influential accounts (KOLs) are following this user.' This specifies the verb (get/return), resource (KOL followers), and scope (for a specific user). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_twitter_user' or 'get_twitter_follower_events', which reduces clarity about when this specific tool is uniquely appropriate.

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 sibling tools like 'get_twitter_user' (which might return general user info) or 'get_twitter_follower_events' (which might track follower changes), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must be public or monitored). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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