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. While it lists parameters, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (tweet objects, metadata format), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description focuses on inputs rather than behavioral outcomes.

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 brief purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Each parameter explanation is clear and minimal. While somewhat lengthy due to 15 parameters, every line adds value and the structure is logical with parameter documentation following the initial summary.

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?

For a complex tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It thoroughly documents inputs but provides no information about return values, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The agent cannot understand what results to expect or operational constraints.

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 and 15 parameters, the description provides excellent parameter semantics by explaining each parameter's purpose with clear examples (e.g., 'hashtag: Filter by hashtag (without #)', 'lang: Language code (e.g. "en", "zh")', 'product: Sort by "Top" or "Latest"'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Advanced Twitter/X search with multiple filters' which specifies the verb (search) and resource (Twitter/X) with the qualifier 'advanced' to indicate enhanced filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from the simpler 'search_twitter' sibling tool by emphasizing 'multiple filters' and 'advanced' nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like the simpler 'search_twitter' sibling tool. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or trade-offs between this advanced search and other Twitter-related tools on the server.

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