get_base_apitools_listMembersByListIdSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/create-manage-lists/api-reference/get-lists-members Group: List. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| listId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | 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?
Annotations are not provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states billing (1 credit per call) and a link to external documentation, which is not accessible to the agent. It does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The tool name suggests a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or whether it requires authentication.
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 short but under-specified. It is not concise because it omits essential information, leaving the agent to rely on the URL and a vague 'Group: List' label. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it only provides a link and billing info. While it is only one sentence, the content is insufficient for the agent's needs, making it a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a URL and billing info, which is far from complete. It does not mention whether parameters are required, what the response looks like, how pagination works (cursor is present), or that proxyUrl is likely needed for network access. Given the tool's complexity (5 params) and lack of structured metadata, the description is severely inadequate.
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 schema has 5 parameters, but schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description does not explain any parameters. The parameter names (count, cursor, listId, proxyUrl, resFormat) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning. Since there are 5 parameters with zero coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The external link might contain details, but it is not accessible. Score 2 because some parameter semantics can be inferred from names and typical API patterns, but the description adds nothing.
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 name 'get_base_apitools_listMembersByListId' and title 'Get List Members By ListId' make the purpose clear: retrieve members of a Twitter list by ID. The description's single sentence 'See details https://... Group: List. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' adds no purpose clarification beyond what the title conveys, and it is essentially a link and metadata, not a functional description. Purpose is clear from name/title but the description does not enhance it.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a link to external docs and billing information. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling tools like `listMembersByListIdV2` or other list-related tools. The external link is not considered sufficient guidance within the description itself.
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.