Twitter241 MCP Server

get_list_timeline

Retrieve tweets from a specified Twitter list by passing its list ID.

Instructions

Get list timeline 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_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cursor`	No	Example value:
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation. It doesn't mention pagination via the cursor parameter, the shape of the returned timeline, or any rate-limit/auth requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It is minimally sized and contains no fluff, though it sacrifices explanatory depth for brevity.

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 and no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return values and usage context. It fails to do so—no mention of what the timeline contains, how cursor pagination works, or expected output format.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the source of listId and the cursor parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond naming listId in the summary, so it does not exceed the schema's coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list timeline') and names the required parameter ('by listId'). It clearly identifies the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_list_details or get_list_members.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling get_* tools.

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

Deploy Server