tweetapi_docs_searchSearch current TweetAPI public docs to find endpoint details for Twitter data. Use it to locate documentation on search, profiles, followers, timelines, lists, communities, and Spaces.
Search current TweetAPI public docs from llms.txt and ai-docs-v2.txt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the contextual detail that the docs are 'current' and sourced from specific files, but does not disclose additional behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. This is adequate given the annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's function and scope in a compact and clear manner.
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?
The tool is a simple search over documentation, and the description gives the essential scope. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the search returns (e.g., snippets, links, or relevance scores). This is a minor gap for a search tool, but overall the description is adequate.
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?
The input schema documents types and constraints for 'query' and 'limit', but the description provides no additional meaning for these parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain semantics, but only the verb 'Search' implicitly suggests 'query' is the search term. 'limit' and other nuances are left unexplained.
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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the exact resource ('TweetAPI public docs') including the source files (llms.txt and ai-docs-v2.txt). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tweetapi_docs_get_page and other data-fetching tools.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: to search the current public TweetAPI docs from specific files. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool when needing to search documentation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.