Twitter241 MCP Server

get_list

Fetch the followers of a Twitter list by providing its list ID. Control pagination with count and cursor parameters.

Instructions

Get List Followers by List ID

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listId": "<listId>"
    },
    "name": "get_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Example value: 20
`cursor`	No	Example value:
`listId`	Yes	Example value: 1238730743569772544

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the read operation and does not mention pagination, response format, rate limits, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, but it has a minor spacing typo. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It does not explain what the response contains, how cursor pagination works, or any usage constraints. This is insufficient for reliable agent selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all three parameters with example values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond indicating that listId identifies the list; it does not explain count or cursor semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves list followers using a list ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('List Followers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_list_members or get_list_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_list_members or get_user_followers. No context about selection criteria is provided.

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

Deploy Server