get_v2_SubscriptionsUser Subscriptions Group: User. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Use the User By Screen Name endpoint to find the ID from a username. | |
| count | No | Number of results | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for other results |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing per call, which is not a behavioral trait. There is no indication of side effects, data returned, required permissions, or any operational behavior.
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 only one sentence long, but it's under-specification rather than conciseness. It doesn't provide meaningful content about the tool's purpose or usage, so the brevity is not an asset.
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?
For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what it returns, or when to use it. The agent would have to rely entirely on the tool name and parameter schema.
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 coverage is 100%, meaning all three parameters (id, count, cursor) already have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-related information, so the baseline score 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 says 'User Subscriptions Group: User' which is a category label, not a clear action. It doesn't specify what the tool does with subscriptions (e.g., list, retrieve). This mostly restates the title 'User Subscriptions' and lacks a specific verb or scope to distinguish it from sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The description provides no usage context at all.
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.