Reads a post and its visible conversation from X, returning replies and comments in page order. Use it to inspect discussion threads and distinguish thread replies from surrounding recommended content.
Read a post and visible conversation page. Can include recommendations/promoted content; it does not assert every returned post belongs to the thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| maxScrolls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable specifics: the page may include recommendations/promoted content and may return posts not belonging to the thread. This meaningfully clarifies the open-world behavior beyond 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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and the important caveat immediately after. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns its place.
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 read tool with strong annotations, the core behavior and open-world caveat are covered. However, there is no output schema and no description of how limit and maxScrolls shape the returned conversation, which leaves an agent with limited guidance for non-default calls. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 needed to explain the parameters, but it does not mention url, limit, or maxScrolls semantics. The schema provides names, defaults, and bounds, but the description adds no meaning to help an agent choose values or understand how scrolling affects results.
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 ('read') and resource ('post and visible conversation page'), and the caveat about recommendations/promoted content and non-thread posts distinguishes it from a strict thread-retrieval tool. This is clear and useful given sibling tools like x_timeline and x_user_posts.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools like x_user_posts or x_timeline. The caveat about recommendations is useful but does not tell an agent when to use this tool versus another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.