Skip to main content
Glama
angheljf

social-media-mcp

by angheljf
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The tools have significant overlap and unclear boundaries. 'create_x_thread' and 'post_to_x' both involve posting to X, with the distinction between a 'thread' and a 'post' not clearly defined in the descriptions, leading to potential confusion. 'list_x_posts' is more distinct but still part of the same ambiguous posting domain.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'create_x_thread', 'list_x_posts', and 'post_to_x', all using snake_case. However, there is a minor deviation in the verb choice: 'create' vs. 'post' for similar actions, which slightly reduces consistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels too thin for a social media domain, lacking essential operations like updating, deleting, searching, or interacting with other platforms. This limited scope may hinder agents from performing common social media tasks effectively.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a social media server. It focuses only on X (Twitter) with basic create and list operations, missing critical functions such as update, delete, reply, like, follow, or support for other platforms like Facebook or Instagram, leading to significant gaps in agent workflows.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to specify critical traits: return format/structure, pagination behavior, chronological ordering, authentication requirements, or whether replies/media are included. It only states the basic operation.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is extremely terse at only five words. While it avoids bloat, it is arguably underspecified rather than elegantly concise—it front-loads nothing beyond the bare minimum identifier and misses opportunities to add behavioral context in a compact way.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    For a social media listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the retrieval scope (current user? specific account? global?), the relationship between threadId and the returned dataset, or what data structure is returned.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and threadId are well-described in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but with complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation without requiring additional compensation from the description.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the core action ('List') and resource ('X posts') and clarifies the platform with '(formerly Twitter)'. However, it lacks scope details (whose posts? timeline vs specific user?) and doesn't fully leverage the sibling differentiation opportunity, leaving gaps in understanding what exactly gets listed.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools (create_x_thread, post_to_x), nor when to utilize the optional threadId parameter versus retrieving unthreaded posts. The usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that creation happens, but omits critical mutation details: authentication requirements, rate limits, character limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the API fails.

    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?

    Extremely brief single sentence with no redundant words. However, the brevity trades off against necessary behavioral disclosure for a social media posting tool.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Insufficient for a write-operation tool. Missing: output behavior (does it return the thread ID?), mechanism for adding subsequent posts (since it only accepts 'first post' content), error conditions specific to X API, and safety considerations. The 'formerly Twitter' clarification is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing operational context.

    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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('Content of the first post'). The description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., expected format, length constraints, that this only creates the first post), meeting the baseline for well-schematized tools.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    States specific action (Create) and resource (thread on X/Twitter). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling `post_to_x`, leaving ambiguity about when to use the thread creator versus a single post tool.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling `post_to_x` or `list_x_posts`. No prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals minimal behavioral traits. It implies a write operation but omits authentication requirements, visibility rules, rate limits, error conditions, and whether posts are immediate or pending.

    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?

    Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, extreme brevity contributes to informational gaps given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Despite simple 2-parameter structure, the description is inadequate for a publishing tool without annotations. Missing: thread lifecycle guidance (create vs reply), error handling, and side-effect disclosure critical for a public posting operation.

    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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'content' and 'threadId'. The description adds no additional parameter guidance (e.g., threadId format, when to omit it), warranting the baseline score.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    Clear verb 'Post' and resource 'message' with platform identification 'X (formerly Twitter)'. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling 'create_x_thread' regarding when to create a new thread versus posting to an existing one.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use 'threadId' versus standalone posting, no mention of prerequisite steps (e.g., obtaining thread IDs), and no reference to sibling tools or alternatives.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

social-media-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

social-media-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/angheljf/social-media-mcp'

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