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 and maximum values for 'limit' (20, max 100), which adds useful context, but fails to address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, or what happens when no results match. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point style parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job explaining inputs but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with multiple filtering options and no structured output documentation, it should provide more complete context about what the tool returns and how results are structured.

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 successfully adds meaning for all 5 parameters by explaining their purposes (e.g., 'Filter tweets from specific user (without @)', 'Filter by hashtag (without #)'), including default values and constraints for 'limit'. This provides clear semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases or interactions between parameters.

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 ('Search Twitter/X for tweets') and resource ('tweets matching criteria'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_twitter_user_tweets' or 'search_twitter_advanced' by focusing on general search functionality. It uses precise language that immediately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'Filter tweets from specific user'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_twitter_advanced'. It provides clear filtering criteria but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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