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 the full burden. It states 'get information' but does not disclose what specific user data is returned (profile fields, metadata, tweets), whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limiting concerns.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. While appropriately brief, it sacrifices necessary detail about the tool's scope and return values.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the existence of multiple sibling user-lookup tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify what user information is retrieved or what distinguishes this endpoint from others.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents both parameters including the overwrite behavior. The description mentions 'by the screenname' which aligns with the required parameter but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves user information using a screenname, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like 'about_profile' or 'profiles_by_restids', leaving ambiguity about which user lookup tool to choose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'about_profile', or when to prefer 'rest_id' over 'screenname' (despite the schema noting that rest_id overwrites screenname).

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