post_base_apitools_setHeadImgset Head Img 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 says nothing about side effects (e.g., profile image update), required authentication, rate limits, or whether the update is reversible. The cryptic 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' is not standard behavioral info. It fails to add any value beyond the tool name.
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?
While the description is extremely short and front-loaded, it's under-specified rather than concise. Every word should earn its place, but here the words 'Group: other' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits' are largely noise. No useful structure (e.g., required params, usage example) is provided.
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 has 8 parameters, no required ones, no output schema, and low schema-description coverage. With no annotations and a useless description, there is essentially no guidance for an agent to determine how to invoke this tool correctly. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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% (only headUrl and headType have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate at all for the undocumented parameters (ct0, tweet, apiKey, proxyUrl, resFormat, auth_token). It doesn't explain what any of these parameters are for or how they interact (e.g., is tweet required? what is resFormat?). The description adds zero value for parameter comprehension.
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 Head Img Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' This is essentially a restatement of the tool name. While it identifies the action (setting a head image), it does not specify what resource or context (e.g., Twitter profile head image) it operates on, nor does it distinguish it from closely related siblings like setHeadImgByFile or setBannerImg. The 'Group: other' is cryptic and unhelpful.
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?
There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setHeadImgByFile or setBannerImg. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions. The description is worse than no description because 'Group: other' provides no actionable information.
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.