post_base_apitools_getDMSSee details https://developer.x.com/en/docs/twitter-api/v1/direct-messages/sending-and-receiving/api-reference/get-event how to get auth_token and ct0? https://x.com/good6_api/status/1812496182213845482 Group: DMS. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| ct0 | No | ||
| apiKey | 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 is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It does not state whether this operation has side effects, requires authentication, how it handles errors, or what it returns. The link to official docs is a pointer, not disclosure of behavior.
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 text is short and skimmable, but it is cluttered with raw HTML line breaks and bare URLs. It front-loads an external link rather than a plain-language statement of purpose, and the scarcity of real descriptive content makes the brevity less a feature than a limitation.
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 description is far from complete for an API tool with six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks return-value expectations, error behavior, prerequisites, and an explanation of which DMS resource is targeted despite the 'id' parameter existent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It mentions auth_token and ct0 are needed (and how to obtain them), but the critical 'id' parameter is never explained as the direct-message event ID, and no meaning is given for apiKey, proxyUrl, or resFormat.
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 references the Twitter API get-event endpoint and groups this under 'DMS', which implies the tool fetches a direct-message event, but it never actually states the function in words. 'receiving events' is vague and does not distinguish this from sibling DMS tools like getDMSListV2 or sendDMS.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives links to external documentation and an auth-token tutorial, plus billing/category info, but does not say when to prefer getDMS over other DMS-related 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.