Twitter241 MCP Server

get_users_by_ids

Fetch Twitter user profiles by supplying user IDs, returning profile details for each specified user.

Instructions

Get Users By IDs (Rest IDs)

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": {
      "users": "<users>"
    },
    "name": "get_users_by_ids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`users`	Yes	Example value: 2455740283,44196397

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the name and gives a vague '(Rest IDs)' qualifier. There is no information about authentication, rate limits, return format, or any side effects. This offers essentially no transparency.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It is essentially a title rather than a helpful description. It fails to provide any detail that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior or parameters, so it is not appropriately sized for the task.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and usage context. It does not explain what 'Users By IDs' means, how the IDs are formatted, what the return value is, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is wholly inadequate for reliable tool 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 input schema has one parameter 'users' with a description example '2455740283,44196397', so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning, but per the rubric, a high schema coverage baseline yields a score of 3 even without parameter info in the description.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Get Users By IDs (Rest IDs)' essentially restates the tool name. It mentions the verb 'Get' and resource 'Users', but adds no meaningful distinction. The parenthetical 'Rest IDs' hints at the ID type but is vague. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_users_by_ids_v2'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_users_by_ids_v2'. It simply states what it does without context.

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

Deploy Server