getCt0 by auth_token
get_base_apitools_getCt0getCt0 by auth_token Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No |
x-twitter
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions billing per call, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose what the tool does, whether it is safe/read-only, what the ct0 token is used for, or any side effects. The description is effectively a rephrasing of the tool name with a billing note.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short: 'getCt0 by auth_token Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' While it is concise in terms of word count, it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way. The billing line is useful, but the rest does not help an agent understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a zero-parameter-required tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is required to explain the tool's purpose and behavior, but it fails to do so. For a tool that likely returns a sensitive authorization token (ct0) and involves billing per call, the lack of context is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and there are 4 parameters (apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) with no documentation in the description. The description does not clarify the purpose or format of any parameter, nor does it explain how they relate to each other. This is a significant failure given the parameters look nuanced (e.g., what is proxyUrl? what format should resFormat take?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'getCt0 by auth_token Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' includes the tool name and a billing note, but does not state what the tool does. 'getCt0' is presented as a specific function, but without context for an AI agent or a human reviewer, this is close to a tautology. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling tools, and the 'Group: other' is not helpful.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given the siblings include 'getToken', 'getUserIdByToken', and 'post_base_apitools_getCt0', explicit usage guidance would be very helpful. The description only implies this is a GET operation for 'ct0' but provides no context on when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
D1.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
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 Consistency1/5
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.
Tool Count1/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.