Save or replace a reusable X/Twitter search definition with a query, tab, limit, and scroll depth, resetting its baseline when replaced. Use it to persist a search for later use without scheduling runs.
Save or replace a local reusable search definition. Replacing it resets its comparison baseline. This does not schedule runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab | No | latest | |
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| maxScrolls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that replacing resets the comparison baseline, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing definitions or any dependencies, but the baseline reset is a key disclosure.
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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary action ('Save or replace') and immediately stating the key side effect (baseline reset) and a limitation (does not schedule runs). Every sentence adds value.
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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on parameter semantics and return behavior. Since it's a mutation-like tool, knowing the response format would be helpful, but the annotations already indicate it's not read-only, so the description is minimally adequate.
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%, so the description is the only source for parameter meaning. The description names 'search definition' which implies 'query' and 'name' are the core parameters, but it provides no details on 'tab', 'limit', or 'maxScrolls' beyond schema defaults and constraints. The description partially compensates but not fully.
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 verb 'Save or replace' and the resource 'local reusable search definition', distinguishing it from siblings like x_saved_search_run which executes searches. It is concise and specific, though it doesn't fully differentiate from x_saved_search_list which is about listing saved searches.
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 in the context of managing saved searches, and the note 'This does not schedule runs' clarifies what the tool does not do. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, but the sibling list gives context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.