Skip to main content
Glama

x-twitter.delete_bookmark

Remove a bookmarked 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 bookmarked post to remove.
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the prerequisite call, account selection behavior, and the cost of 30 tokens. However, it does not disclose failure modes or reversibility, but for a simple bookmark removal this is acceptable.

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: the action, usage instructions, and cost. Every sentence conveys critical information with no wordiness, making it highly scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive tool, it covers the prerequisite (connected_accounts), account targeting options, and cost. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for post_id, user_id, and user_name. The description restates the user_id/user_name selection logic but adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 starts with 'Remove a bookmarked post for a connected X account,' which clearly states the verb (Remove), resource (bookmarked post), and scope (for a connected X account). It is distinct from sibling x-twitter.delete_post, which deletes a post rather than a bookmark.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call x-twitter.connected_accounts first and explains how to target an account via user_id/user_name or default. It provides clear context for when to use the tool but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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.