Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agent Twitter Client MCP

Agent Twitter Client MCP

by ryanmac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

grok_chat

Chat with Grok AI through Twitter to get answers, continue conversations, and receive search results with citations.

Instructions

Chat with Grok via Twitter

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "grok_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage to send to Grok
conversationIdNoOptional conversation ID for continuing a conversation
returnSearchResultsNoWhether to return search results
returnCitationsNoWhether to return citations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclosure behavioral traits, but it only states 'Chat with Grok via Twitter' without mentioning authentication, side effects, or the nature of the interaction (e.g., AI response).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. While it is not verbose, it could include slightly more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 chat tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how conversationId, returnSearchResults, or returnCitations work, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 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 'Chat with Grok via Twitter' clearly specifies the action (chat) and the resource (Grok), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on Twitter-centric actions like sending tweets or searching.

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 (e.g., send_tweet, search_tweets). There is no mention of prerequisites or appropriate contexts.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools