Twitter241 MCP Server

get_list_details

Get details for a Twitter list using its list ID. Returns metadata like name, description, and member count. Ideal for fetching specific list information.

Instructions

Get list details by listId

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_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`listId`	Yes	Get this value from \\\"lists[x].object_id\\\" returned from GET /search-lists Endpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and a one-line description, the tool's behavior is not disclosed. It doesn't mention what 'details' include, whether data is returned as a single object, pagination, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful transparency.

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 concise sentence with clear structure, front-loading the action and parameter. It is efficient but may be slightly under-specified.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is too sparse. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what fields or data structure are returned, error conditions, or any prerequisites other than listId. It leaves too many gaps for a user to understand the full context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter semantics, with the listId description providing clear guidance on how to obtain the value from lists[x].object_id in the search-lists endpoint. The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves list details by listId, a specific verb and resource. However, the presence of sibling tool 'get_list' with a similar purpose means it doesn't differentiate from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_list, get_list_timeline, or search_lists. The description simply states the action without any contextual usage information.

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

Deploy Server