Skip to main content
Glama
RajGehlot28

@twitterapis/mcp

by RajGehlot28
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

twitter_tweet_retweeters

Read-only

Lists accounts that retweeted a specific tweet, returning profile data for each retweeter with pagination. Use it to find who amplified a tweet or map its distribution network.

Instructions

List the accounts that retweeted a specific tweet. Returns profile data for each retweeter. Paginate with cursor. Useful for finding who amplified a piece of content or mapping a tweet's distribution network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoTweet/post numeric id (e.g. "1789012345678901234"). Provide exactly one of id or url.
urlNoFull tweet URL, e.g. "https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1789012345678901234". Provide exactly one of id or url.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.9

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds return content ('profile data for each retweeter') and a pagination instruction, but does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, or the upstream page-size cap noted only in the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by return content, pagination, and use cases. Efficient with barely any waste, though the use-case sentence borders on optional.

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 read-only list endpoint with full param coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and return content adequately. The count-cap nuance lives in the schema, so the description is complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so id/url, count, and cursor are all fully documented, including the advisory page-size caveat. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the accounts that retweeted a specific tweet') that cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like twitter_tweet_replies, twitter_tweet_quotes, and twitter_tweet_thread. An agent can identify the resource 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?

Gives concrete use cases ('finding who amplified a piece of content or mapping a tweet's distribution network'), which clarifies when the tool is appropriate. However, it offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for adjacent needs.

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