Agent Twitter Client MCP

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 but provides almost none. 'Quote a tweet' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this creates a public post, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably posts content to a social platform.

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?

The description is maximally concise at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it immediately scannable and understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given this is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after quoting (e.g., returns a tweet ID, posts publicly), doesn't mention authentication or permission requirements, and provides no behavioral context. For a social media posting tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (text, quotedTweetId, media). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 'Quote a tweet' clearly states the verb ('quote') and resource ('a tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'retweet' or 'send_tweet' by specifying the quote action rather than simple reposting or original posting. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what quoting entails (embedding another tweet with commentary), 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.

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 quoting is appropriate compared to retweeting, sending a new tweet, or other sibling tools. There's no information about prerequisites, context, or exclusions for using this functionality.

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