Twitter241 MCP Server

search_twitter_v2

Search Twitter to find top, latest, videos, photos, or people by query. Control results with type, count, and cursor.

Instructions

Search Twitter (Top, Latest, Videos, Photos and People)

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "count": "<count>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_twitter_v2"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Example value:
`count`	Yes	Example value: 20
`query`	Yes	Example value: Mr Beast
`cursor`	No	Example value:

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It simply states what the tool searches, without revealing how it behaves.

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 fragment, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It lacks necessary detail for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a vague parameter list, this tool requires a much more descriptive explanation. The single phrase leaves out pagination, return structure, and any operational 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 schema has 100% coverage because every parameter has an 'Example value' field, but those examples are sparse (e.g., empty strings). The description hints at possible values for 'type' by listing categories, but does not explicitly map them to parameters, adding only marginal value.

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 identifies a search tool for Twitter with specific categories (Top, Latest, Videos, Photos, People). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_twitter'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_twitter or other search-related tools. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server