Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits—what data is returned (trending hashtags? topics? volumes?), error conditions, or rate limits. It mentions a 'list' of countries but doesn't explain the supported values or format.

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?

While the description is brief (one sentence), the content is inappropriate for a tool definition—it reads as a user feedback request rather than functional documentation. The sentence does not earn its place in helping an agent understand or select the tool.

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 being a single-parameter tool, the description is fundamentally incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, the expected return data, or valid inputs for the country parameter. Without an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool produces, which it entirely neglects.

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 reported as 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. However, the description adds minimal value—only implying the country parameter filters by country without specifying format (ISO code, name, etc.). The schema's description field ('Example value: ') is effectively empty, but per rubric guidelines for high coverage, the score remains at baseline.

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 completely fails to state what the tool does. It mentions requesting other countries but never indicates that this tool retrieves trending topics or what resource it operates on. The agent cannot determine the tool's function from this text alone.

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 tool versus siblings like 'search' or 'communities_posts_search_latest'. The description contains zero usage context or prerequisites.

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