get_x_postFetch one public X post with its author and engagement counts. When the post is an X Article its text is only a link: the title and full body are in article. Costs 1 credit + 1 credit per post returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | X post id (digits). An x.com or twitter.com status URL also works. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds nontrivial behavioral context: credit cost and the special article-link behavior, which an agent would not know from the annotations.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The core operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important article caveat and cost information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description gives a useful summary of the return shape: post, author, engagement counts, plus the article field caveat. It is close to complete, though it could say more about failure or rate-limit behavior.
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 100%, so the id parameter is already fully documented, including that an x.com or twitter.com status URL works. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: fetching one public X post, including author and engagement counts. The singular post scope distinguishes it from sibling bulk tools such as get_x_posts and aligns with get_x_article semantics.
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 implies usage by saying it fetches one post and explains the article edge case, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over get_x_article, get_x_posts, or search_x. Guidance is present only indirectly.
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.