Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_search_community_notes_written

Search for Community Notes written by a user. Use pagination to browse results and test mode to validate requests without side effects.

Instructions

Search for Community Notes Written. Use when: Search for Community Notes Written. 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 tweet.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: test_mode (query, boolean, required); pagination_token (query, string); max_results (query, integer). 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_search_community_notes_written","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_modeYes
max_resultsNo
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
pagination_tokenNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It declares read-only risk, details OAuth token and scope requirements, explains environment-selection behavior, provides an expected response shape, and lists common failure conditions and safety warnings.

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, making it easy to parse. It contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Risk: read-only' repeated in safety warnings), but remains appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, environment selection, parameter constraints, response envelope, failures, and prerequisites. The main gap is the unspecified structure of the 'data' field inside the response, leaving the search result payload unclear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter formats and constraints, and explains environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey. However, preferredAuthType and authorizationKey remain unexplained, and test_mode semantics are unclear.

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 clearly states 'Search for Community Notes Written', identifying the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create/delete/evaluate community notes, though it does not explicitly call out the differentiation.

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 provides a 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' section, with explicit alternatives like x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools are also listed, giving solid guidance on when to use this tool.

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