Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
twikit-mcp

twikit-mcp

by tangivis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mute_user

Mute a Twitter user by their screen name to block their posts from your timeline.

Instructions

Mute a user by screen name.

Note: X aggressively rate-limits / risk-scans block + mute. Avoid bulk usage or your account may be temporarily restricted.

Args: screen_name: Twitter username (without @).

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": {
      "screen_name": "<screen_name>"
    },
    "name": "mute_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
screen_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.33

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that X rate-limits and risk-scans mute operations, and that bulk usage may lead to account restrictions. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise with three short paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the critical rate-limit warning, and finally details the parameter format. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, format, and a key behavioral warning. The output schema likely explains return values, so the description does not need to. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 schema provides no description for the screen_name parameter (0% coverage). The description clarifies that it expects a Twitter username without the @ symbol, adding meaningful semantic information that the schema lacks.

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 explicitly states 'Mute a user by screen name,' which clearly identifies the verb (mute) and resource (user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like block_user and unmute_user.

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 warns about aggressive rate limiting and advises against bulk usage, providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like block_user or specify when to choose mute over block.

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