get_base_apitools_uerByIdOrNameLookUpSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/accounts-and-users/follow-search-get-users/api-reference/get-users-lookup Group: userTweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| screenName | 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. The term 'lookup' and 'Get' imply a read-only operation, and billing cost is disclosed, but there is no statement about authentication, response format, rate limits, or what data is returned. This is minimal transparency.
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, containing a link, a group label, and billing info. It is concise, but the space is not used effectively: the link may be inaccessible to the agent, and the group 'userTweets' is tangential. It does not front-load essential operational details like which parameters are needed.
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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about parameter requirements, return values, or how to choose between userId and screenName, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external lookup.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (userId, screenName, proxyUrl, resFormat). The title implies userId and screenName are alternative identifiers, but the description adds no parameter-level semantics, leaving the agent to guess which parameters are required and how they interrelate.
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 title clearly states 'Get user information based on username or id (lookup)', which provides a specific verb and resource. The description's link to 'get-users-lookup' reinforces the lookup purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like userByScreenNameV2 or uerByIdRestIdV2, relying on the title to convey the combined by-ID-or-name scoping.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only provides a documentation link and billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits'). No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings, leaving the agent without usage context.
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.