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 indicate whether this is a read-only operation, explain pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, or describe rate limiting. It does not disclose what search syntax is supported (exact match, partial, boolean).

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 single sentence is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, but it is overly terse given the rich sibling context (24 tools). It fails to earn its keep regarding differentiation and leaves critical contextual gaps that require additional sentences.

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?

Despite low structural complexity (2 flat parameters), the description is incomplete because it fails to differentiate from numerous sibling tools and provides no hints about the output structure (absent output schema) or search matching logic necessary for an agent to use this tool effectively over alternatives.

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?

Per the rubric, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the schema technically documents both parameters (albeit with only example values rather than semantic descriptions). The description does not clarify the cursor's role in pagination beyond the schema's empty example.

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 identifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('communities'), but fails to specify what searchable fields are queried (names, topics, descriptions) or distinguish this tool from siblings like the general 'search' tool or 'communities_posts_search_latest' (which searches posts within communities rather than communities themselves).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'communities_posts_search_latest'. The agent receives no signals about prerequisites (e.g., whether to use this before fetching community posts) or exclusion criteria.

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