Skip to main content
Glama

x-twitter.create_bookmark

Bookmark a post for a connected X account.

Call x-twitter.connected_accounts first. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, or omit both to use the default account.

Cost = 30 tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_idYesNumeric id of the post to bookmark.
user_idNoNumeric X user id from x-twitter.connected_accounts. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account.
user_nameNoX handle from x-twitter.connected_accounts, with or without a leading @. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNoNumeric X user id of the connected account.
user_nameNoX handle of the connected account.
bookmarkedNoWhether the post is bookmarked after this request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_id / description
      Previous value: -"Numeric X user id from get-x-connected-accounts. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account."New value: +"Numeric X user id from x-twitter.connected_accounts. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account."
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_name / description
      Previous value: -"X handle from get-x-connected-accounts, with or without a leading @. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account."New value: +"X handle from x-twitter.connected_accounts, with or without a leading @. Pass user_id or user_name to target a specific account, not both. Omit both to use the default account."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the cost (30 tokens) and a prerequisite (connected_accounts), but does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or permissions. The 'Bookmark' action implies a mutation, and the description adds some operational context but not deep behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes both usage guidance and cost. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the operation, prerequisite, account selection, and cost. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. It is sufficient for a simple create action, though it could mention edge cases like invalid post IDs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the mutual exclusivity of user_id and user_name. The description reinforces this guidance but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bookmark a post for a connected X account.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (delete_bookmark, get_bookmarks) make it distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to call x-twitter.connected_accounts first and explains how to select the target account (user_id, user_name, or default). While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear for a simple bookmarking operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.

Tool Count4/5

78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.

Completeness5/5

Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.