get_base_apitools_likeTweetsee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/tweets/post-and-engage/api-reference/post-favorites-create Group: Tweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that this is a mutating operation (liking a tweet). The external link might contain details, but the description itself provides zero transparency.
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 brief, which could be seen as concise, but it fails to earn its place because it provides no substantive information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the single sentence is not structured to aid comprehension.
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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a low-complexity description that merely points to an external URL, the tool is severely incomplete. The description does not cover any aspect of usage, parameters, behavior, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to select or invoke confidently.
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?
The input schema has 6 parameters (e.g., id, ct0, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) with 0% schema description coverage. The description makes no effort to explain any parameter's meaning or usage, leaving the agent completely unguided.
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 only provides a URL and billing info, with no explicit statement of what the tool does. The title 'like(favorites) Tweet' is somewhat suggestive, but the description itself fails to state the verb and resource, relying entirely on an external link. This is effectively missing purpose clarification.
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 the many sibling tools like likeV2 or unlikeTweet. The description merely says 'see details' and gives billing, offering no contextual advice or exclusions.
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.