Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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 but fails to deliver. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite having a cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether results are real-time. The word 'Search' implies read-only access, but safety characteristics are not explicit.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. While extremely brief, every word serves a purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary guidance, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values, result structure, or pagination behavior. With only 7 words describing a 2-parameter search tool, critical context is missing that would help an agent predict outputs or handle errors.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (both parameters have example values), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description text itself adds no semantic information about the parameters—it doesn't explain that 'query' accepts keywords or that 'cursor' handles pagination. It relies entirely on the schema examples.

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 provides a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('Latest posts in communities'), and the inclusion of 'Latest' helps distinguish it from the sibling 'communities_posts_search_top'. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify the distinction from 'comunity_posts' (which likely retrieves posts without search filtering) or define what 'communities' refers to.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention when to prefer 'latest' over 'top' results (communities_posts_search_top), or when to use 'comunity_posts' instead. No prerequisites or contextual triggers are provided.

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