Skip to main content
Glama
RajGehlot28

@twitterapis/mcp

by RajGehlot28
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

twitter_blocking

Read-only

List the accounts your authenticated X account has blocked; paginate with cursors to fetch every blocked user.

Instructions

List the accounts YOUR authenticated account has BLOCKED, as full user objects, cursor-paginated. Requires an authenticated session behind your key. There is no user_id argument: X provides no way to read another account's block list, so this reads yours only. An empty users array is a real answer meaning you block nobody, never a silent failure, because the endpoint returns an error status rather than an empty page when it cannot read the list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ct0NoOptional. The account's ct0 cookie, paired with auth_token. Sent as the x-ct0 header.
countNoRequested page size, capped at 200. Advisory only for this endpoint: X's own search backend typically returns around 13 to 20 tweets per page regardless of the value requested here, an upstream limit, not something this API controls. To retrieve more results, page with the cursor from the previous response rather than raising this value.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a previous response's next_cursor field. Omit on the first call; pass on subsequent calls to fetch the next page.
proxy_urlNoOptional. Residential proxy URL to egress this call through. Recommended for writes: X soft-blocks writes from datacenter IPs as automated. Sent as the x-proxy-url header.
auth_tokenNoOptional. The account's auth_token cookie, to act AS that account for this call (must be paired with ct0). Sent as the x-auth-token header; never placed in the URL.
user_agentNoOptional. User-Agent string to send for this session. Sent as the x-user-agent header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.9

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/destructive=false), it discloses auth requirements ("Requires an authenticated session behind your key"), a failure-mode guarantee that an empty users array is a genuine result rather than a silent failure because the endpoint errors instead of returning an empty page, and pagination behavior. That is meaningful operational context the annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, no filler, and the most important constraint (self-only scope) is front-loaded in the first clause. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: auth requirement, argument absence, and empty-result semantics.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema and six optional parameters, the description compensates well: it characterizes the return (full user objects, cursor-paginated), the empty-array case, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: it explains the deliberate absence of a user_id argument and frames retrieval as cursor-paginated ("page with the cursor from the previous response"). It does not add per-parameter detail beyond that.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List the accounts YOUR authenticated account has BLOCKED") and immediately constrains scope to the caller's own account. The emphasis on "YOUR... BLOCKED" distinguishes it cleanly from sibling read tools such as twitter_muting, twitter_user_followers, and twitter_user_info without requiring a schema read.

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?

It gives clear selection context: use this for your own block list, and explicitly rules out the alternative case by stating "There is no user_id argument: X provides no way to read another account's block list." It stops short of naming sibling tools (e.g., twitter_muting) as related alternatives, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools