Twitter241 MCP Server

get_post_comments_v2

Fetch comments for a specific Twitter post using its ID. Supports count, cursor pagination, and ranking by relevance, likes, or recency.

Instructions

Get Post Comments By Post ID V2

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": {
      "pid": "<pid>"
    },
    "name": "get_post_comments_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pid`	Yes	Example value: 1924185704613208381
`count`	No	Example value: 20
`cursor`	No	Example value:
`rankingMode`	No	Relevance \|\| Likes \|\| Recency

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and resource, with no mention of pagination, output format, rate limits, or side effects. The vague phrase 'V2' hints at a version difference but gives no behavioral details.

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 a short phrase that essentially restates the tool name. While it is concise, it is under-specified rather than effectively condensed, providing no additional structure or front-loaded value beyond the name.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention pagination (cursor, count), sorting (rankingMode), response format, or differences from 'get_post_comments'. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% per context signals, so the baseline is 3. The schema provides example values for pid, count, cursor, and an enum for rankingMode. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the weight.

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 'Get Post Comments By Post ID V2' clearly states the action (get) and resource (post comments) with an identifier (post ID). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_post_comments', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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_post_comments' or other comment-related tools. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

Deploy Server