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 almost none. It does not explain the cursor parameter's role in pagination, what happens when a user has no media, rate limits, or the structure of returned media objects. The only behavioral hint is 'get,' implying a read-only operation.

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 brief (5 words), but contains filler words ('Helps to') that could be replaced with a precise verb ('Retrieves'). While appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, the vagueness of 'Helps to' wastes the limited space without conveying clear operational semantics.

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 presence of pagination (cursor parameter), three input parameters, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It should acknowledge the pagination capability, clarify the relationship between screenname and rest_id, or indicate the volume/type of data returned. As written, it provides only a high-level label.

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 example values provided, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., explaining that rest_id is an alternative identifier, or that cursor is for pagination), but the schema adequately documents the parameters without needing supplementary description text.

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 identifies the general resource (user's media) and action (get), but uses weak phrasing ('Helps to get') that creates ambiguity about whether the tool performs the action or assists with it. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like user_timeline or user_replies by specifying 'media,' but lacks specificity about what constitutes media (photos, videos, etc.).

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 alternatives like user_timeline, or when to use rest_id versus screenname. The description fails to mention that screenname is required while rest_id is optional, leaving the agent to discover parameter requirements solely from the schema.

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