Skip to main content
Glama

x_api_get_posts_liking_users

Retrieve users who liked a specific post by ID. Ideal for analyzing engagement and tracking which accounts reacted to a post via the X API.

Instructions

Get Liking Users. Use when: Get Liking Users. Do not use when: a more specific auth/configuration tool is required before the API call or you are only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first. Risk: read-only. Required permissions and prerequisites: OAuth 2 user token with scopes like.read, tweet.read, users.read; OAuth 1a user token Environment-selection behavior: scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId or scopeAccountId choose the Vault/Postgres tenant principal used for auth resolution. credentialKey selects a non-default stored credential profile when present. Parameter formats and constraints: id (path, unknown, required); max_results (query, integer); pagination_token (query, unknown). Expected response shape: { ok, status, data: { method, path, url, status, contentType, authType, data } } Common failure conditions: missing scoped credentials in Vault, missing required API parameters, X API auth failures, rate limits, or unsupported multipart/body shape. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools: x_connection_info, x_schema_discovery, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request. Safety warnings: This is read-only, but responses can still include sensitive account data depending on granted scopes. Example: {"name":"x_api_get_posts_liking_users","arguments":{"scopeTenantId":"default","scopeUserId":"default","id":""}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
max_resultsNo
scopeUserIdNo
credentialKeyNo
scopeTenantIdNo
scopeAccountIdNo
authorizationKeyNo
pagination_tokenNo
preferredAuthTypeNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states read-only risk, required OAuth scopes, common failure conditions (rate limits, auth failures), expected response shape, and safety warnings about sensitive account data. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with labeled sections (Risk, Permissions, Parameter formats, etc.) and is information-dense without excessive fluff. The 'Use when: Get Liking Users' is a redundant tautology, but overall structure earns a high score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers permissions, response shape, failure conditions, safety, and an example, which is strong for a complex tool with no output schema. However, it does not explicitly clarify that 'id' is the post ID or explain pagination_token mechanics, leaving minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the crucial environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey, and lists constraints for id, max_results, and pagination_token. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving some parameters under-explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get Liking Users' with a specific verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces this. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like x_api_get_users_liked_posts, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use when' section simply repeats 'Get Liking Users' with no added context. The 'Do not use when' provides general advice to prefer discovery tools first, but it does not compare against specific alternative API tools for the same operation, leaving usage guidance partially implied.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LesterAJohn/X-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server