post_base_apitools_uploadMediaFileupload media for tweet Group: other. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ct0 | No | ||
| tweet | 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 present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only reveals 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is a minimal cost disclosure. Nothing is said about side effects (media being persisted, rate limits, auth requirements, what happens on upload), nor does it explain the difference between this and the GET-prefixed sibling tools. The billing info is useful but far from sufficient for a mutating upload operation.
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 (one purpose sentence plus two metadata phrases) and doesn't waste words. However, this borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness — the minimalism means the space isn't used effectively to convey the value an agent needs.
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?
For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is highly inadequate. With at least three upload media sibling tools, the lack of disambiguation and the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves the agent with substantial guessing. Billing info and 'Group: other' are the only added values.
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% for 6 parameters, and the description adds absolutely no parameter information whatsoever. Parameters like 'ct0', 'tweet', 'apiKey', 'proxyUrl', 'resFormat', and 'auth_token' are completely unexplained. An agent would have no idea that 'resFormat' likely means response format or what format 'tweet' should be in for an upload. The description must compensate for the missing schema info and does not.
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 'upload media for tweet' uses a clear verb+object structure that states what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely named siblings like get_base_apitools_uploadMedia, post_base_apitools_uploadMediaDM, and get_base_apitools_uploadMediaDM, nor does it clarify what distinguishes this from the GET/POST variants of similar operations.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description offers no information on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (uploadMedia, uploadMediaDM, sendDMSMedia, tweetSimple, etc.), nor any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. 'Group: other' is the only contextual hint, and it's not a usage guideline.
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.