Twitter Api45 MCP Server

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

Zero annotations provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits like error handling for deleted/private tweets, rate limiting, authentication requirements, or whether quoted tweets are expanded.

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?

Single sentence contains filler phrases ('With this endpoint you can') that delay the core verb. Contains grammar error ('it's' instead of 'its'). While brief, it wastes words on implementation details rather than value proposition.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description omits what 'tweet info' actually contains (text, author, media, engagement metrics). For a lookup tool with 26 siblings, this vagueness increases risk of selecting the wrong tool.

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 an example ID value provided. The description mentions 'by it's id' but adds no semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., ID format rules, where to obtain valid IDs, or case sensitivity requirements).

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?

States the basic action ('get tweet info') but uses the vague noun 'info' instead of specific data points (content, author, metrics). Fails to differentiate from siblings like 'tweet_thread' or 'retweets' which also retrieve tweet-related data by ID.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'tweet_thread' for conversation threads or 'retweets' for engagement data. No mention of prerequisites like tweet visibility, deleted status, or permissions.

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