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. It states this is a 'Get' operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid/non-existent IDs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the 'Args:' section formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but adds clarity.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. The input schema has 0% description coverage (just 'User Id' title), but the description clarifies that 'user_id' is a 'Twitter user ID (numeric string)', specifying the format and context. This compensates well for the schema 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Twitter/X user profile information'), and specifies the lookup method ('by user ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_twitter_user' (which might use a different identifier).

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 sibling tools like 'get_twitter_user' (possibly by username) and 'search_twitter', there's no indication of when this specific ID-based lookup is preferred or required.

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