Skip to main content
Glama
RajGehlot28

@twitterapis/mcp

by RajGehlot28
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

twitter_monitor_update

Pause, resume, or edit an existing Twitter monitor in one atomic call: update status, webhook delivery, domain filter, or reply handling without recreating it.

Instructions

Partially update an existing monitor: pause or resume it via status, change which webhooks receive its events via webhook_ids, change or clear its domain_filter, or any combination in the same call (applied atomically). Resuming a paused monitor re-runs the same capacity and per-account cap checks as creating a new one, since it adds load back to the shared pool. Free per call. All three fields are optional; omit any of them to leave that part unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe monitor's id, from twitter_monitor_create or twitter_monitor_list.
statusNo'paused' to pause the monitor, 'active' to resume it. Omit to leave status unchanged.
webhook_idsNoOptional. Comma-separated webhook id(s) to restrict delivery to. Pass an empty string to clear the restriction back to 'deliver to every active webhook'. Omit entirely to leave it unchanged.
domain_filterNoOptional. A bare hostname or full URL to restrict delivery to, same shape and normalization as twitter_monitor_create's domain_filter. Pass an empty string (or null) to clear an existing filter back to 'deliver every new post'. Omit entirely to leave the current filter unchanged. Rejected with a 400 if a non-empty value does not normalize to a valid hostname.
include_repliesNoOptional boolean. true delivers the account's replies as well as its own posts, false holds replies back and delivers only its own posts. Omit the field entirely to leave it unchanged. Same boolean-only validation as twitter_monitor_create: a non-boolean is a 400 rather than a coercion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.9

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses that changes are applied atomically, that the call is free, and that resuming has side effects on a shared capacity pool. It does not cover failure behavior for webhook_ids or per-call rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the mutation options, then the resume caveat and the partial-update rule. Every sentence carries information, though the closing 'all fields optional' sentence partially repeats what the per-parameter schema descriptions already say.

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 mutating tool with no output schema this covers atomicity, cost, and the side effects of resuming, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is the unrecognized include_replies parameter and the inaccurate 'three fields' claim, which could mislead an agent into thinking that field is unsupported.

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 100%, so each parameter's omit/clear semantics are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. It also undercounts the fields, saying 'All three fields are optional' when the schema has four optional fields, omitting include_replies entirely.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Partially update an existing monitor') and enumerates exactly what can be changed (status, webhook_ids, domain_filter), which cleanly separates it from twitter_monitor_create and twitter_monitor_delete. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 explains the partial-update contract ('omit any of them to leave that part unchanged') and gives a non-obvious precondition: resuming re-runs capacity/per-account cap checks. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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