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 reveals almost nothing. It does not state whether this requires authentication, what the return format contains (user objects? IDs?), how pagination behaves (cursor expiration?), or what happens if the screenname doesn't exist.

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?

At only five words, the description is certainly concise and front-loaded, but it is underspecified rather than efficiently informative. For a tool supporting pagination and filtering, this brevity leaves critical gaps that force the agent to infer usage patterns.

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 three parameters (including pagination and filtering controls), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It omits essential operational context: the pagination workflow using 'cursor', the purpose of 'blue_verified' filtering, and the structure of returned follower data.

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?

Context signals indicate 100% schema description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. While the schema provides example values for parameters, the description adds no semantic context—particularly failing to explain that 'cursor' is for pagination or what the 'blue_verified' filter actually does (boolean? string? filter logic?).

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('user's followers list'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_followers' (which likely retrieves followers of a curated list rather than a user), and the word 'latest' is ambiguous—it could mean 'most recent followers' or 'current/up-to-date list'.

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 siblings like 'following' (which retrieves who a user follows) or 'list_followers'. It fails to mention that the 'cursor' parameter enables pagination for large follower lists, or explain what values are expected for the 'blue_verified' filter.

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