Skip to main content
Glama
nakasyou

twitter_api_safe_relay_mcp

by nakasyou

Related Servers

Alternatives to twitter_api_safe_relay_mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to interact with the X (Twitter) API v2 through 41 typed tools for reading, searching, engaging, publishing, and managing content, with policy-based access control and session credit budgets to prevent overspending.
      41
      30 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      C
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Read-only Twitter API server with bookmark and like management, plus anti-rate-limit protection.
      38
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes provider-specific tools and relays HTTP requests to configured providers like Supabase, Vercel, and Context7, enabling interaction with multiple external APIs through a unified MCP interface with configurable authentication and access controls.
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Model Context Protocol server that enables programmatic interaction with Twitter API, allowing users to post tweets, search for content, and retrieve user timelines through standardized MCP tools.
      9 npm
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP clients to access FxTwitter/FxEmbed read-only APIs, exposing tools for retrieving posts, threads, conversations, user profiles, media, followers, search results, and trends.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to safely interact with external services (HTTP, GraphQL, gRPC, Bash, SQL) using HCL templates and OS keychain secrets, preventing prompt injection by keeping request details from the LLM.
      113
      Apache 2.0

    TDQS

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one fetches/curates request templates from the catalog, the other executes a single request against the relay. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tools use a similar 'twitter_' prefix, but one uses 'request' and the other 'request_catalog', which is a mild inconsistency in granularity. The names are readable but the pattern isn't perfectly parallel—'twitter_api_request' vs 'twitter_request_catalog' mixes the placement of 'api' and 'request'.

    Tool Count2/5

    Two tools feels extremely thin for a Twitter/X API surface, which is vast (timelines, tweets, users, friendships, DMs, media, trends). While the catalog tool cleverly bundles the numerous request types into a searchable interface, the overall surface is still very limited given the breadth of the domain.

    Completeness3/5

    The two-tool design is a clever pattern: the catalog surfaces templates for any operation and the executor handles them, so in principle the coverage is as deep as the catalog. However, there are no helper tools for authentication setup, session management, or error diagnosis, and the design forces agents to do two calls for every single operation, creating friction.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues