Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't confirm this is read-only (though implied), doesn't explain the pagination mechanism suggested by the 'cursor' parameter, and doesn't describe the return format or what constitutes an 'affiliate' in this context.

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

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

The description is a single sentence and appropriately brief, but 'Give you' is wordy and imprecise compared to direct action verbs. The typo 'affilates' and lack of front-loaded key constraints (like pagination) slightly reduce effectiveness.

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

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

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is still inadequate. It omits pagination behavior (critical given the cursor parameter), doesn't clarify the relationship between affiliates and the corporate account, and provides no indication of the data structure returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (per context signals), the descriptions are only example values ('x', empty string) without semantic meaning. The tool description adds no parameter context, failing to explain that 'screenname' refers to the corporate account or that 'cursor' handles pagination.

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

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

The description states it provides a list of affiliates (misspelled as 'affilates') for corporate accounts, distinguishing it from sibling user-centric tools like 'followers'. However, 'Give you' is a weak, informal verb that lacks precision compared to 'Returns' or 'Lists', and the typo reduces clarity.

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

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mention of 'corporate account' hints at the specific context (corporate vs. personal accounts), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'followers' or 'following', nor does it state prerequisites for the screenname parameter.

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