tweetapi_tool_catalogReturns a machine-readable catalog of current TweetAPI MCP tools, with optional filters by category, tool name, or endpoint path, so AI agents can discover available read-only Twitter data endpoints.
Return a machine-readable catalog of current TweetAPI MCP tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| toolName | No | ||
| endpointPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'machine-readable' attribute, hinting at the output format, but does not disclose further behavioral details like response structure or whether filters apply.
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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes, with no extraneous detail.
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 the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what the catalog contains, how the optional parameters filter results, or the nature of the machine-readable output. More detail is needed for effective usage.
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 schema documentation coverage is 0% (no descriptions), and the description does not explain the parameters (category, toolName, endpointPath). While these names suggest filters, the exact meaning and usage are left to inference, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema info.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return a machine-readable catalog of current TweetAPI MCP tools.' It uses a specific verb (Return) and a clear resource (catalog of tools), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch specific data.
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 does not mention that it can be used to discover available tools before invoking other endpoints, nor does it exclude any use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.