Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Gets' implies read-only access, the description fails to disclose pagination behavior (despite the cursor parameter), result limits, rate limiting, or whether deleted/restricted replies are filtered.

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 contains no wasted words, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is inappropriately sized—too minimal to convey necessary behavioral context or parameter semantics. Front-loading is moot with only four words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return structure, pagination mechanics, and sibling differentiation. It provides none of these, leaving the agent to infer behavior solely from parameter names and examples.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. However, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema—the schema only provides example values (not explanations) for 'id' and 'cursor', and the description doesn't clarify that 'id' is the target tweet ID or that 'cursor' controls 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 the basic verb ('Gets') and resource ('latest replies of the tweet'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'user_replies' or 'tweet_thread'. It also omits scope details like how many replies are returned or what 'latest' means chronologically.

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 'tweet_thread' (which also returns conversation threads) or 'user_replies'. No mention of prerequisites like tweet visibility or authentication needs.

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