x-mcp-server

x_list_operations

Lists all available operations in the X API via the MCP server, enabling discovery of endpoints and their capabilities.

Instructions

Browse the X API v2 — 175 of 190 operations are reachable here. Use this to find an operation id for x_call. Many endpoints need a paid access tier on your X account; that is a fact about the account rather than this server, and X reports it clearly if you lack one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "x_list_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	No	Filter by id, path, tag or summary — try 'posts', 'users', 'lists'.
`include_excluded`	No	Also show the streaming endpoints, which cannot be tool calls.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that 175 of 190 operations are reachable and mentions the paid access tier requirement for some endpoints, giving insight into what the tool can and cannot do. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, though these are implied.

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 reasonably concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The inclusion of the paid access tier note adds some length but provides useful context. Overall it is well-structured without being bloated.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and is a listing/discovery tool, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, how to use it, and relevant caveats. It does not specify return format, but that is not critical for this type of tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema descriptions fully cover both parameters ('search' and 'include_excluded'). The tool description does not add additional semantic details beyond what is already in the schema, so it stays at the baseline for full coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to browse the X API v2 and find operation IDs for x_call. It explicitly mentions 'Browse the X API v2' and 'Use this to find an operation id for x_call', making the resource and action unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this to find an operation id for x_call', giving direct guidance on when to use the tool. It also provides context about reachable operations and the paid access tier, helping users understand the tool's scope and limitations.

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

Deploy Server