get_base_apitools_CommunitiesTimelineV2get Communities Explore Timeline. Group: communities. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| topicId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No |
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 the full burden. It does not mention any behavioral aspects such as return format, pagination beyond the cursor parameter hint, or rate limits. The tool likely makes API calls, but nothing is disclosed. The description just restates the purpose without describing 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 extremely short, nearly a repeat of the title. It includes billing information that is probably not critical for tool selection. While it is concise, it omits important information, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for all missing context. It does not. For a tool with 5 parameters and likely a complex response, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand what it does beyond the broad purpose.
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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter. There are 5 parameters (apiKey, cursor, topicId, proxyUrl, resFormat) with no descriptions. The tool description adds zero value to understanding these parameters, so the agent must guess their meanings. This is a significant gap.
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 'get Communities Explore Timeline' states the tool retrieves a timeline for communities. It is clearer than a tautology because it adds 'Explore Timeline' to the name, but it lacks specificity about the exact resource or scope. Among siblings like 'CommunitiesTweetsTimelineV2' and 'CommunitiesSearchV2', it does not fully distinguish itself as it doesn't clarify what 'Explore Timeline' includes.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'CommunitiesTweetsTimelineV2' and 'CommunitiesSearchV2', the description fails to mention any difference or when to prefer them. It only provides generic info about billing, which is not usage guidance.
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.
The set is full of confusing variants such as get_/post_ prefixed duplicates of the same endpoints, competing V1/V2 versions of the same action (e.g., followersList vs. followersListV2), and poorly described tools like CommunitiesSearchV2 and getCt0 that give no clear unique purpose. Agents would frequently need to guess between similar tools for a single task.
Naming is chaotic, mixing camelCase (getDMS, likeV2), PascalCase (CreateNoteTweet, CommunitiesMemberV2), and inconsistent prefixes (gettools_*, get_*, post_*) with duplicated operations. The 'get_/post_' prefixes appear to indicate API method rather than action, but they are applied inconsistently, with some tools appearing under both and others only once. There is no predictable verb_noun pattern throughout.
With 107 tools, the server is extremely large, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch, and this count is inflated by duplicates (many get_/post_ twins) and overlapping V1/V2 variants. Even the unique tool set is likely around 60-70, which is still an unwieldy surface for an agent to negotiate. This severely disrupts coherence.
The tool set covers most core Twitter/X domains: tweets, likes, retweets, follows, DMs, search, communities, lists, and profile management. However, it is cluttered with duplicates and lacks some obvious pieces like mute/unmute operations or a direct 'update tweet' action, and several tools appear to be thin wrapper variations of the same endpoint. Coverage is broad but not cleanly organized.