get_base_apitools_CommunityQueryV2get CommunityQuery info Group: communities. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| communityId | 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 must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or output format. It only mentions billing per call and the community group, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.
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 text is short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified: the main phrase merely repeats the title and the only added information is group and billing. This is not appropriately concise for a tool with five undocumented parameters and no output schema.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description must provide substantial context but does not. It omits return value details, pagination, required inputs, and any relationship to the many sibling community tools, making it inadequate for correct selection and invocation.
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% and the tool has five parameters (apiKey, cursor, proxyUrl, resFormat, communityId), none of which are explained in the description. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, so the agent cannot infer how to populate them.
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 is nearly identical to the title ('get CommunityQuery info') and adds only 'Group: communities' and billing. It does not define what CommunityQuery represents or what information is returned, and it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling communities tools such as CommunitiesFetchOneQuery or CommunitiesTimelineV2.
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. 'Group: communities' gives only a broad domain hint, with no mention of when CommunitiesFetchOneQuery, CommunitiesSearchV2, or other community tools would be more appropriate, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.