twikit-mcp

search_users

Find Twitter user accounts by query, with pagination via cursor to navigate results.

Instructions

Search for user accounts matching a query. Paginated via cursor.

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_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	Yes
`cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does add pagination via cursor as a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, the return format, or any other side effects. The disclosure is minimal but present, warranting a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is informative, and the pagination mention is a natural extension of the search functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description does not explain the return value structure or what fields are included in the results. It also leaves the count parameter behavior implicit. However, for a straightforward search with pagination, it covers the essential usage, so it's adequate but with clear gaps.

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 clarifies that 'query' is the search term and 'cursor' enables pagination, but it does not explain the 'count' parameter, though its name and default value give some hint. This partial compensation earns a solid 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'user accounts' and the qualifier 'matching a query', which clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user or get_user_by_id that fetch specific users. The mention of pagination via cursor adds further specificity.

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 implies the tool is for open-ended search by query, which clearly differentiates it from direct lookups by ID or other user-related actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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