get_v1_1_TrendsTrends Group: Explore. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of results | |
| location_id | No | You must use the Locations endpoint to find IDs. Currently only countries are supported. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions billing cost and labels the tool as 'Explore', omitting what the tool returns, any side effects, limitations, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational traits.
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 extremely short, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently concise. 'Trends Group: Explore. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' contains minimal informative content and leaves out core functional details, similar to the 'Process' example.
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?
This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only a two-part description. The description fails to explain the resource being accessed, the output format, or how the parameters affect results. The only useful context (location support) is buried in the schema, not the description. It is incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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% because both 'count' and 'location_id' have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents them sufficiently. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Trends Group: Explore' is vague and tautological, restating the title 'Trends' without specifying the action. It does not state that this tool fetches trending topics or data, and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_Search or get_v2_Tweet.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this endpoint is appropriate. The only hint about needing the Locations endpoint appears in the input schema, not in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools appear to do the same thing, such as get_v1_1_Followers vs get_v2_Followers and get_v2_Tweet vs get_v2_TweetDetail. The descriptions are too brief to clarify differences, and multiple user lookup tools (get_v1_1_Users, get_v2_UserByRestId, etc.) create confusion.
Naming is inconsistent, mixing camelCase (get_ShortUrl), snake_case (get_email_search_by_username), and version prefixes with varying formats (get_v1_1 vs get_v2). No uniform verb_noun pattern is followed.
With 32 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given many redundant variations across API versions. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for too many tools, and many could be consolidated.
The server is entirely read-only (all tools are GET), missing write operations like posting tweets, following users, or sending direct messages. This is a significant gap for a Twitter server, and even read coverage has redundancies rather than comprehensive distinct endpoints.