x-ai-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a send operation via X's API, implying a write/mutation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'regular conversations only' adds some context, but overall, critical behavioral details are missing for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no complex annotations.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool, such as side effects or error conditions. The presence of an output schema helps, but more detail on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes both parameters (conversation_id and text), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't provide detailed semantics like format examples or constraints. With 2 parameters and good coverage in the description, this is above baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Send a DM') and resource ('via X's internal API'), specifying it's for 'regular conversations only'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like x_dm_inbox or x_list_dms by focusing on sending rather than reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from x_send_dm, which appears to be a similar tool in the sibling list.

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 specifying 'regular conversations only', suggesting it shouldn't be used for other conversation types. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x_send_dm (a sibling tool) or other messaging tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the conversation type.

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