Generate Twitter/X threads from an article or topic, with each tweet limited to 280 characters. Ideal for repurposing content into social media posts.
Generate engaging Twitter/X threads from an article or topic. Each tweet enforces the 280-character limit. (~5 credits)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cta | No | ||
| tone | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| article | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| threadLength | No | ||
| includeHashtags | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits — that each tweet is constrained to 280 characters and that the call costs roughly 5 credits — but says nothing about auth requirements, latency, or what the returned thread looks like, leaving significant gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then a key constraint, then the cost. Nothing is wasted, though the middle sentence is a minor detail the agent could not act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves most callable surface undocumented. An agent could invoke it with just 'article' but would have to guess at the meaning of the remaining six parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 7 parameters, so the schema contributes no semantics. The description only hints at 'article' and 'topic', leaving cta, tone, language, threadLength, and includeHashtags entirely unexplained (and includeHashtags is oddly typed as string). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource — generate Twitter/X threads — and names the two accepted inputs (article or topic). It is distinguishable from siblings like aaddyy_instagram_post_generator or aaddyy_linkedin_post_generator by channel, though it doesn't explicitly call out the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other content generators in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'from an article or topic' only hints at acceptable input, which is implied rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.