Twitter MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions default values and limits, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means (time window). For a read operation with 4 parameters, this leaves significant 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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks information about return format, error conditions, rate limits, and authentication requirements. For a tool with 4 parameters and multiple sibling tools, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does well by explaining all 4 parameters: username format ('without @'), limit range and defaults, and the boolean filters' purposes. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify exact return formats.

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 specific action ('Get recent tweets') and resource ('from a specific Twitter/X user'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_twitter_user (user profile) or search_twitter (general search). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving tweets from a specific user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_twitter_user_by_id (which might get user info) or search_twitter (for broader searches). The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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