get_base_apitools_CreateNoteTweetCreate Note Tweet Group: Send Tweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| medias | No | medias ids | |
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| richtextTagsEnd | No | richtext_tags end index | |
| richtextTagsType | No | richtext_tags types[Bold , Italic] | |
| richtextTagsStart | No | richtext_tags start index |
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 only mentions billing ('1 Credits') and that it sends tweets, but does not reveal side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this posts publicly or drafts.
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 brief and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Both sentences carry some information, yet the brevity comes at the cost of critical usage and parameter guidance.
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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral details, a two-sentence description is grossly insufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 coverage is only 40%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. Six of ten parameters (ct0, text, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) are undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving the agent unable to infer what values are expected.
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 action: 'Create Note Tweet' and 'Send Tweets.' It identifies the resource type (Note Tweet) but does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like createTweet or tweetReply beyond the 'Note Tweet' term.
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 usage context is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., authentication), or what distinguishes this endpoint from createTweet/tweetReply.
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.