X(Twitter) MCP Server

by cjkcr

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have clear distinctions between draft creation (create_draft_tweet, create_draft_reply, create_draft_thread, create_draft_quote_tweet) and direct actions (reply_to_tweet, quote_tweet, retweet), but there is some overlap: create_draft_reply and reply_to_tweet both handle replies, differing only in draft vs. direct, which could cause confusion. Similarly, create_draft_quote_tweet and quote_tweet serve similar purposes with a draft distinction.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., create_draft_tweet, delete_draft, list_drafts). The naming is predictable and uniform across all tools, making it easy for agents to understand and use them without confusion.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, this server is well-scoped for managing tweets and drafts on X (Twitter). The count is appropriate, covering creation, deletion, listing, and publishing of drafts, as well as direct tweet actions, without being overly complex or too sparse for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for tweet and draft management, including CRUD-like operations (create, list, delete, publish) and direct interactions (reply, quote, retweet). A minor gap exists in updating drafts (e.g., edit_draft), but agents can work around this by deleting and recreating drafts, and the core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.2/5 across 10 of 10 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a draft tweet' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether drafts are saved locally or to a service, what happens if content exceeds length limits, or any other behavioral aspects. It's minimally informative about the tool's behavior.
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 with just three words that directly state the tool's purpose. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it maximally efficient while still communicating the core function.
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 write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, whether there are character limits or content restrictions, how the draft is stored or accessed, or what the tool returns. The context demands more information than provided.
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 schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'content' fully documented as 'The content of the tweet'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive parameter documentation.
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 'Create a draft tweet' clearly states the action (create) and resource (draft tweet), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like create_draft_quote_tweet, create_draft_reply, or create_draft_thread. It's a basic statement of purpose without specifying what makes this tool distinct from other draft creation tools.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple draft creation tools available (create_draft_quote_tweet, create_draft_reply, create_draft_thread), there's no indication of when this basic draft creation is appropriate versus those specialized alternatives.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a draft, implying a non-destructive, preparatory action, but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like rate limits. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, draft lifecycle, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool that creates drafts. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('comment' and 'tweet_id') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in a 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a draft quote tweet') and resource ('quote tweet with comment'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'quote_tweet' or 'create_draft_reply', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quote_tweet' or 'create_draft_reply'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if the draft must be published separately, leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a draft reply, implying a write operation that doesn't publish immediately, but fails to mention critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if drafts are saved locally or on a server, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and context. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., draft storage, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and output details. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools that might offer similar or overlapping functionality.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('content' and 'reply_to_tweet_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as content length limits or tweet ID format requirements. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a draft reply') and the resource ('to an existing tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'reply_to_tweet' or 'create_draft_quote_tweet', which would require more specific language about draft vs. published replies or reply vs. quote functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'create_draft_reply' over 'reply_to_tweet' (which might publish immediately) or 'create_draft_quote_tweet' (which creates a quote tweet draft), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or draft limitations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create a draft tweet thread') but does not explain what 'draft' entails (e.g., saved locally vs. on a server), permissions required, or any side effects like rate limits or data persistence, leaving significant gaps.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that creates a draft. It does not cover what a 'draft' means in this context, how it interacts with other tools like 'publish_draft', or what the expected outcome is, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'contents' parameter well-documented in the schema as an array of tweet contents. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond this, such as formatting rules or constraints, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('draft tweet thread'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_draft_tweet' or 'create_draft_reply', which might involve similar actions but for different tweet types, leaving some ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_draft_tweet' or 'create_draft_reply'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for creating a draft thread, offering minimal usage direction.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, nor does it relate to sibling tools. For a delete operation with such sparse structured data, more context is needed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'draft_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the parameter identifies the draft to delete, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a draft tweet or thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'publish_draft' or 'list_drafts' beyond the obvious verb difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft), exclusions (e.g., not for published tweets), or comparisons to siblings like 'publish_draft' or 'list_drafts', leaving usage context entirely implicit.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Publish') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is destructive (e.g., does publishing remove the draft?), what permissions are required, error conditions, or what happens after publishing. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without any unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given this is a mutation tool (publishing implies writing/changing state) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after publishing, what gets returned, error scenarios, or how this differs from other publishing tools in the sibling list. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'draft_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, where to find draft IDs, or validation rules). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Publish') and the resource ('a draft tweet or thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'quote_tweet' or 'reply_to_tweet' which also involve publishing content, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool should be used versus those alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'quote_tweet' or 'reply_to_tweet'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft), exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose correctly among the publishing-related tools in the sibling 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether listing is paginated, if it requires authentication, what format the output returns, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or verbose phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), behavioral aspects like pagination, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns data, this leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resources ('all draft tweets and threads'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_draft_tweet' or 'delete_draft' beyond the listing action, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'publish_draft' or 'delete_draft'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('quote tweet with comment') but does not disclose critical traits such as whether this is a public post, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success/failure response). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('quote tweet with comment') and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool (posting to a social platform) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, side effects) and expected outputs, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly and safely.
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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Your comment on the quoted tweet' and 'The ID of the tweet to quote'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('quote tweet with comment') and resource ('tweet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'retweet' (which lacks a comment) and 'reply_to_tweet' (which is a direct reply rather than a quote). The phrase 'retweet with your own comment' further clarifies the purpose by relating it to a familiar Twitter concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retweet' (for sharing without comment) or 'reply_to_tweet' (for direct replies). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.
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 carries the full burden. It states the action ('retweet') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a clarifying detail ('without comment') that adds value. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., auth, side effects), response handling, and error conditions. For a mutation tool in a social media context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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%, with the parameter 'tweet_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific action ('retweet') and resource ('an existing tweet'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'simple retweet without comment' (unlike quote_tweet which adds commentary). It uses precise language that directly communicates the tool's function.
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 provides clear context by specifying 'simple retweet without comment,' which implicitly distinguishes it from quote_tweet (which adds commentary). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like quote_tweet or create_draft_quote_tweet, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a write operation ('Reply to') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the tweet ID is invalid. The description adds some context about direct posting but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Reply to an existing tweet directly') and adds necessary clarification ('without creating a draft'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.
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 moderate complexity (a write operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like error handling or response format. It compensates well for the absence of annotations in differentiating from siblings but could be more comprehensive.
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 schema already fully documents both parameters ('content' and 'reply_to_tweet_id'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 specific action ('Reply to an existing tweet') and resource ('tweet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_draft_reply' by specifying 'directly (without creating a draft)'. This provides precise differentiation and avoids ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Reply to an existing tweet directly') and when not to use it ('without creating a draft'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like 'create_draft_reply' and 'publish_draft'. This provides perfect guidance for tool selection.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![x-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cjkcr/x-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cjkcr/x-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![x-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cjkcr/x-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cjkcr/x-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/cjkcr/x-mcp'

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