x-links-searchSearch X (Twitter) posts by prompt and return matching post links via Desearch AI. Use it to find relevant tweets and sources for research or monitoring.
AI search for X (Twitter) post links using Desearch. Returns links from posts that match the prompt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Results to return. Min 10. Max 200. | |
| prompt | Yes | Search query prompt, example: 'Bittensor subnet updates' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results come from an AI/Desearch pipeline and are links only, which is useful context, but says nothing about rate limits, result freshness, or what happens when no matches are found.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with no filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the first ('search for post links' vs 'returns links from posts') but does clarify the return shape, which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states that links are returned, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a tool sitting among five-plus overlapping search siblings, it lacks the differentiating detail an agent needs to route to it confidently.
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% with only two parameters, and the schema already documents prompt and count (including min/max bounds). The description adds no syntax, format, or prompt-engineering guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (search) plus resource (X/Twitter post links) and the backing engine (Desearch), so an agent knows this returns links rather than posts. It implicitly separates itself from web-links-search by scoping to X, but never names or contrasts the many sibling search tools.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. Siblings like x-search, ai-search, and web-links-search overlap heavily, and nothing here explains which one an agent should pick for link discovery versus post retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.