get_base_apitools_listByUserIdOrScreenNameSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/create-manage-lists/api-reference/get-lists-list Group: List. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| screenName | 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?
There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and the description does not mention side effects, rate limits, errors, or data sensitivity. The tool appears to be a 'get' operation but this is not explicitly stated.
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, consisting of a link and billing details, but this brevity sacrifices clarity. It lacks a structured explanation of functionality or parameters, making it under-informative despite its short length.
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 the lack of annotations, parameter descriptions, output schema, and any behavioral details, the description is far from complete. It does not cover the tool's functionality, inputs, or expected behavior, making it inadequate for understanding usage.
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?
Parameters (userId, proxyUrl, resFormat, screenName) are listed with types only, with no descriptions. Their purpose, valid values, and relationships are entirely unexplained, relying solely on parameter names.
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 title suggests retrieving a list by user ID or screen name, and the description mentions 'Group: List' and 'Billing per call' but does not explicitly state the tool's function. The scope of 'list' is ambiguous, and the description lacks a clear statement of what the tool does beyond the title.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes a link for details and billing info, with no indication of appropriate use cases or conditions.
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.