get_base_apitools_listMembersByListIdV2Get List Members By ListId V2 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it fails entirely. It doesn't mention parameters like pagination (cursor), output format, rate limits, authentication, or data sensitivity. The billing note '1 Credits' is minor and doesn't cover typical behavioral aspects. Nothing about what happens or what's returned.
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 short, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any substantive information that would justify its brevity. However, it does front-load the basic purpose name and format.
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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain usage patterns, response structure, required inputs (no required params), or any constraints. This is far below the minimum viable level for a complex API tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero parameter explanation. Parameters like count, cursor, listId, proxyUrl, and resFormat are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent with no idea of expected formats or default behaviors. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 merely repeats the tool's name and title ('Get List Members By ListId V2') with no additional detail about what it does or what it returns. It adds only a group label and billing note, which don't clarify the operation. It's almost a tautology, but it does convey a basic API action.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools like listMembersByListId. The description's 'Group: List' is trivial and not helpful for choosing among the many list-related tools.
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.