Twitter241 MCP Server

get_organization_affiliates

Get organization affiliates by user ID on Twitter. Specify user and count to fetch affiliate list, with cursor for pagination.

Instructions

Get Organization Affiliates By ID You can get the user(rest_id) query from \

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": {
      "user": "<user>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "get_organization_affiliates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user`	Yes	Example value: 377228272
`count`	Yes	Example value: 20
`cursor`	No	Example value:

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. The name implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is not concise or well-structured. It contains extra spaces, a redundant 'By ID', and is clearly truncated mid-sentence. It fails to deliver a complete, self-contained explanation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a broken description. It provides almost no context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, or behavior, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are merely example values (e.g., '377228272', '20'), not meaningful semantics. The tool description adds no real parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The phrase 'Get Organization Affiliates By ID' gives a clear verb and resource, but the description is fragmented and incomplete, ending mid-sentence. It does not effectively distinguish from siblings, though no sibling is obviously related to organization affiliates.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. The truncated hint about obtaining the user(rest_id) query is the only contextual clue, but it is incomplete and does not explain use cases or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server