get_base_apitools_setHeadImgByFileset Head Img by file Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| tweet | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| headUrl | No | head online url | |
| headType | No | person or web3 | |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' which is a cost note, not behavioral transparency. It does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, what side effects occur, or any authentication requirements beyond the presence of auth_token in the schema.
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 (one sentence plus billing note), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide essential information about the tool's purpose, parameters, or usage. The 'Group: other' and billing note are low-value additions that do not help the agent.
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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what the expected outcome is. The sibling tool 'setHeadImg' exists, and this tool's name suggests a file-based variant, but the description does not clarify the distinction or provide any operational context.
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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions: headUrl and headType). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The tool name suggests 'by file' but the schema includes headUrl (online URL) and headType (person or web3), which are partially described. The other 6 parameters (ct0, tweet, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token) are completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.
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 'set Head Img by file' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing no additional clarity about what the tool does beyond the name itself. It does not specify the resource being modified (e.g., user profile) or distinguish it from the sibling tool 'setHeadImg' which likely sets a head image by URL rather than by file.
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 does not mention that this tool is for uploading a file-based head image, nor does it contrast with 'setHeadImg' (which likely uses a URL). The 'Group: other' and billing note are not usage guidance.
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.