Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but reveals nothing about rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (critical given the 'cursor' parameter), or error handling (e.g., private accounts). 'Get' implies read-only but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words in a single sentence. While efficiently worded, it is arguably under-specified given the tool's complexity (pagination, dual ID schemes) and could benefit from an additional sentence explaining the cursor-based pagination.

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?

Incomplete for a tool with pagination capabilities and alternative lookup methods. The description omits how to handle the cursor for large result sets, what 'rest_id' represents, and how this differs from the 'followers' sibling tool. No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter context beyond the schema, failing to explain that 'cursor' handles pagination, 'rest_id' is an alternative identifier, or that 'screenname' is the primary lookup key.

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 clearly states the action (Get/list) and target resource (accounts the user is following). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling 'followers' tool (which likely retrieves the inverse relationship), a common point of confusion that should be explicitly clarified.

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 guidance provided on when to use this versus siblings (e.g., 'followers'), no explanation of when to use 'rest_id' versus 'screenname', and no mention of pagination workflows despite the presence of a 'cursor' parameter.

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