get_base_apitools_notificationsVerifiednotifications verified Group: notifications. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| cursor | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions billing per call and the group, but does not state whether the tool reads data, writes data, requires authentication, has side effects, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is essentially a stub with no behavioral information.
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, but this is not conciseness; it is under-specification. It consists of two terse sentences that add minimal value (group and billing). There is no structure or front-loading of critical details, and the few words used do not earn their place because they do not inform the agent about tool functionality.
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 that the tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how parameters relate to the operation. It does not. The description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, usage, or expected inputs/outputs, especially in a large sibling group.
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 (ct0, apiKey, cursor, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no explanations for any of these parameters. Since the schema itself is unhelpful and the description provides zero parameter context, agents have no guidance on how to fill these fields.
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 'notifications verified Group: notifications. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the tool name and title without specifying any action or resource. It lacks a verb and provides no indication of what the tool does, such as retrieving verified notifications or performing some administrative function. The only additional info is the group and billing, which does not clarify purpose.
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 alternatives. Sibling tools like get_base_apitools_notificationsAll and get_base_apitools_notificationsMentions exist, but the description does not explain how 'notifications verified' differs or in which scenarios it should be preferred. No context, prerequisites, or use cases are provided.
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.