Skip to main content
Glama
TwitterAPIs

twitterapis

twitter_monitor_create

Create a monitor to watch an X account for new posts. New posts are HMAC-signed and delivered to your registered webhooks on a shared poll interval. Returns the monitor's ID, normalized handle, status, and poll interval.

Instructions

Start watching an X account for new posts. Every new post from that handle is HMAC-signed and delivered to your registered webhook(s) on a shared poll interval (see twitter_monitor_webhook_create to register a delivery URL first). Free: monitor creation is account administration, not a metered read. Returns the new monitor's id, plus its normalized handle, status, and poll_interval_ms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesThe X username to watch, without the leading @ (e.g. 'elonmusk').
webhook_idsNoOptional. Comma-separated webhook id(s) from twitter_monitor_webhook_create to restrict this monitor's deliveries to. Omit to deliver to every active webhook on the account (the default).
domain_filterNoOptional. A bare hostname ('example.com') or a full URL ('https://example.com/blog') to restrict delivery to only the new posts that link to that host or a subdomain of it (e.g. 'example.com' matches both example.com and blog.example.com). Normalized server-side: lowercased, scheme/path/query/fragment/leading www./trailing :port stripped. Omit for no filter, the default (deliver every new post). Rejected with a 400 if what remains after normalization is not a valid hostname shape. A post with no matching link is filtered out of delivery, never silently dropped: it still advances the monitor's cursor and counts toward the account's tweets_domain_filtered health metric.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations state readOnlyHint=false (so a write) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds meaningful context: it mentions HMAC signing, shared poll interval, that it returns various fields, and that creation is 'account administration, not a metered read', which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense paragraph. Each sentence adds new details (purpose, delivery mechanism, free status, return value) with no redundancy, and it fits on three sentences total.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, only 1 required) and presence of annotations, the description covers the action, delivery details, prerequisites, and return information. It does not elaborate on edge cases like invalid handle or webhook deletion, but those are not essential given the schema and sibling tool references. It lacks a reference to the poll interval value or further detail, but this is not critical for a first creation call.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself only mentions 'handle' indirectly via return value ('normalized handle') and the webhook_ids are partially implied ('delivered to your registered webhook(s)'). It does not add additional meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already explains.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start watching an X account for new posts' – a specific action on a specific resource, and it distinguishes itself by outlining the monitoring/delivery behavior (HMAC signing, webhook delivery, shared poll interval) and references the return value (monitor id, status, poll_interval_ms).

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 implicitly guides usage by noting 'see twitter_monitor_webhook_create to register a delivery URL first', which is a clear prerequisite. It also mentions that creation is free, distinguishing this from possibly metered reads, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other monitor tools or when not to use it.

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/TwitterAPIs/twitterapis-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server