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 but offers minimal information. It does not clarify read-only status, rate limits, error handling (e.g., deleted tweets), or the structure of the returned thread data. The mention of 'basic' tweet info is vague regarding what fields are included.

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 description is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in necessary context, suggesting it is under-sized rather than optimally concise.

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?

The tool lacks both annotations and an output schema, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the return structure (how replies are organized), pagination mechanics, or differentiating from related tools. For a tool retrieving threaded conversation data, this leaves critical operational context undocumented.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (with examples), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context, such as explaining that 'id' refers to the root tweet ID or that 'cursor' is for paginating through long reply threads.

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 uses specific verbs ('Gets') and identifies the resource (basic tweet info and replies). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'tweet_info', which likely retrieves only the tweet without the reply thread, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'tweet_info' (for single tweets) or 'user_replies' (for replies by a specific user). The description also fails to mention the pagination behavior implied by the 'cursor' parameter or prerequisites like tweet ID format.

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