Creates a new X (Twitter) list with a required name and optional private setting or description to organize accounts into curated lists.
Create a new Twitter list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | List name (max 25 chars) | |
| private | No | Whether the list should be private (default: false) | |
| description | No | List description (max 100 chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/mutation but says nothing about required permissions, rate limits, duplicate-name handling, whether the new list is returned, or how it relates to get_user_lists afterwards.
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?
A single short sentence with zero wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably undersized for a mutation tool, leaving no room for behavioral context.
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 is simple (3 params, no nesting, no output schema), but with no annotations and no return-value description, the definition leaves the agent without any behavioral context for a write operation. It should at least indicate auth requirements or what the call returns.
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 100%, so all three parameters (name, private, description) are already documented in the schema, including length limits and defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Twitter list'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_list_info or get_user_lists, though the verb 'create' already distinguishes it from those read operations.
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 alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (authentication, ownership limits), and no exclusions. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.