get_base_apitools_uerByIdRestIdV2Get userByIdRestId by V2 Group: userTweets. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | ||
| userId | No | ||
| proxyUrl | No | ||
| resFormat | No | ||
| auth_token | No | web twitter login cookie info 'auth_token' |
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 disclose behavior. It only mentions billing credits, which is not behavioral. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication (beyond a param), has rate limits, or what occurs on errors. The absence of any behavioral detail is a critical gap.
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 brief, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It conveys no useful information beyond the name and group. Every sentence is redundant with the tool name, so while it is short, it does not earn its place by adding value.
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?
The tool is moderately complex (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description offers nothing to help an agent understand its functionality, expected inputs, or return values. It is completely inadequate for safe and correct invocation, especially given the large sibling set with similar purposes.
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 20% (auth_token has a description), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. It does not add meaning for cursor, userId, proxyUrl, or resFormat, leaving the agent to guess their formats and purposes. The description completely fails to compensate for the low schema 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 restates the tool name and title, saying 'Get userByIdRestId by V2' without explaining what a userByIdRestId is or what data is returned. It provides no clear distinction from siblings like userByScreenNameV2 or usersByIdRestIds. This is a tautology, adding no new information about the tool's 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternative methods for fetching user data. The mention of 'Group: userTweets' is a categorization, not usage guidance. There are no scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without direction.
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.