List all Twitter/X monitors on your account with their IDs, subjects, status, webhook restrictions, and creation dates to audit or manage monitoring rules.
List every monitor on your account: id, subject (its from: query), kind, status ('active' or 'paused'), degraded flag, events_possibly_missed, webhook_ids restriction, and created_at. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the fact that no arguments are accepted and enumerates returned fields, but it does not go beyond annotations with behavioral context like pagination, rate limits, or the semantics of 'degraded flag' or 'events_possibly_missed.'
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 two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. The field enumeration is dense but directly useful for an agent selecting or invoking the tool, and there is no filler or redundant information.
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?
For a read-only list tool with no parameters, the description covers the action, output fields, and argument expectation well. However, terms like 'degraded flag,' 'events_possibly_missed,' and 'webhook_ids restriction' are left unexplained, and with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of clarifying return value semantics.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema shows empty properties. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments,' which removes ambiguity and meets the 0-parameter baseline; no further parameter explanation is possible.
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 opens with 'List every monitor on your account,' giving a specific verb and resource, then details the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling monitor tools like twitter_monitor_health and twitter_monitor_deliveries.
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?
The purpose is implied by the resource name and the direct 'List every monitor on your account' phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as twitter_monitor_health, twitter_monitor_deliveries, or twitter_monitor_account_health. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.