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. While it mentions the return type (array), it fails to disclose critical operational details such as maximum number of rest_ids allowed per call, error handling for invalid IDs, whether the operation is read-only, or rate limiting implications.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and return type, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (single string parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the basic return structure ('array of users'). However, it lacks completeness regarding error behaviors, batch size constraints, and the structure of user objects within the array.

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% with one parameter. The description adds semantic context by confirming the parameter represents 'rest_ids' (user identifiers), which complements the schema's example value (44196397,34743251) by clarifying what the numbers represent. Baseline score appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 (Returns) and resource (array of users) and specifies the identifier type (rest_ids), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_info that likely use usernames. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar profile lookup tools in the sibling 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 alternatives such as user_info or about_profile. It does not mention prerequisites, rate limits, or optimal use cases (e.g., batch lookups vs. single lookups).

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