x-mcp-server

x_call

Call any X API v2 operation by ID. Provide operation_id, plus optional params and body, to execute the desired endpoint.

Instructions

Call any X API v2 operation by id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "x_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`params`	No
`operation_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Call any X API v2 operation by id' and gives no indication of side effects, destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. This is especially risky for a generic tool that could invoke create or delete operations.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant wording, and the core mechanism is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is under-specified in other dimensions, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness problem.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a highly generic tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to discover operation IDs, what body and params mean, what side effects may occur, and what the response looks like, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it safely and correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for 'operation_id' through the phrase 'by id'. It does not explain how 'params' and 'body' are used, how they map to the selected operation, or how they relate to query parameters and request bodies.

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 states a clear action ('Call'), a defined resource ('any X API v2 operation'), and the key selection mechanism ('by id'). It implies a generic dispatcher role that differentiates it from the fixed-operation siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated siblings such as x_get_post or x_create_post. It also does not mention that operation IDs could come from x_list_operations, nor when the generic path should be preferred over specific tools.

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

Deploy Server