Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_get_users_pinned_lists

Retrieve the pinned Lists for a user on X using their user ID. This read-only tool returns the pinned Lists via OAuth-authenticated API call.

Instructions

Get pinned Lists. Use when: Get pinned Lists. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: read-only. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes list.read, tweet.read, users.read; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: id (path, unknown, required). Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This is read-only, but responses can still include sensitive account data depending on granted scopes. Example: {"name":"x_api_get_users_pinned_lists","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default","id":""}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only risk, required OAuth scopes and token types, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is exemplary and goes well beyond basic requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with labeled sections and an example, making it easily scannable. It is verbose but mostly informative. Redundancy exists (e.g., 'Risk: read-only' and 'Safety warnings: This is read-only'), which prevents a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex API tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a robust context: response shape, permissions, environment behavior, failure conditions, and an example. It lacks detailed semantics for all parameters and does not explain the contents of the returned data, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' as a required path parameter and details the environment-selection roles of scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey. However, it omits meaning for authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving some parameters unclarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get pinned Lists' clearly, identifying the action and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools by its unique subject, but it does not explicitly differentiate from related list tools (e.g., x_api_get_users_followed_lists).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, explicitly recommending x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. However, it does not suggest alternative tools for similar list-related operations, so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives coverage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server