get_base_apitools_setProfileset Profile Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | No | describe | |
| ct0 | No | ||
| url | No | url | |
| name | No | name | |
| apiKey | No | ||
| location | No | location | |
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | ||
| birthdate_day | No | birthdate_day | |
| birthdate_year | No | birthdate_year | |
| birthdate_month | No | birthdate_month |
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 must carry the burden. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the fact it sets a profile. It does not state whether this modifies existing fields, and the 'Group: other' and billing info are useful but not behavioral. The description adds minimal value in terms of side effects or requirements.
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 metadata), but it is not front-loaded with the most important usage information. It wastes space on 'Group: other' and billing info that could be elsewhere. It is concise but arguably under-specified, and the structure does not help the agent understand the tool.
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 12 parameters, many optional, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify which parameters are needed for typical profile updates (e.g., who you are updating, what fields are typically used). The tool is a mutation, and the description does not explain the impact on existing profile data or mention any constraints. The sibling setBannerImg and setHeadImg are more specific, but this tool is broader, so it needs more explanation.
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 58% (7 out of 12 parameters have descriptions), which is moderate. The schema already provides descriptions for many fields, but the tool description does not add any extra context. For the undocumented parameters like ct0, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token, the description gives no hints. Since coverage is above 50%, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value, so 3 is appropriate.
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 says 'set Profile' which clearly indicates the purpose is to update a user's profile. However, it lacks specificity about which profile fields can be set (though schema shows them) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like setBannerImg or setHeadImg, which are also profile-related but for specific fields.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only adds 'Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' which is metadata, not usage context. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication or when you'd choose this over other profile-setting 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.