twikit-mcp

search_tweets

Search Twitter/X tweets by query and filters. Supports pagination and advanced search operators like from:, filter:, and -is:retweet.

Instructions

Search tweets. product = Top | Latest | Media. Paginated via cursor.

Supports X search operators, e.g. 'from:nasa filter:media -is:retweet'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_tweets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`count`	No
`query`	Yes
`cursor`	No
`product`	No	Latest

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and supports for X operators, which adds value. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe the response format, so it is not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb, and no wasted words. The mention of operators and parameters is packed efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the key functional aspects: search, product type, pagination, and operator support. It omits count but that is a minor detail. Overall it is quite complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains product (enum values) and cursor (pagination), and gives a query example, but does not describe the count parameter or its default behavior. It adds meaning beyond the schema but not fully.

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 opens with 'Search tweets', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from search_users and other tweet-related tools. It also adds extra scope by explaining product types and search operators.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: choosing product (Top/Latest/Media) and using X search operators, plus pagination via cursor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious enough.

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