x-mcp-server

x_search_posts

Search recent posts on X using query syntax to find relevant content. Requires Basic access or higher.

Instructions

Search recent posts. Needs at least Basic access; the free tier cannot read.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "x_search_posts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	X search query syntax.
`next_token`	No
`max_results`	No
`tweet.fields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the Basic-access requirement and that search targets 'recent' posts, but says nothing about pagination via next_token, result limits, ordering, rate limits, authentication details, or read-only behavior. For a search tool, this leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Search recent posts'), and the access constraint follows in a clearly separate sentence. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool is under-described. The description leaves parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and return shape unaddressed. An agent could make a basic query call but would lack the context needed to use advanced fields or interpret results 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 only 25%: only the query parameter has a description ('X search query syntax'). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented next_token, max_results, or tweet.fields parameters. With low schema coverage, the description needed to add meaning but did not.

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?

Description states a clear operation ('Search') on a clear resource ('recent posts'), which is distinguishable from siblings like x_get_post and x_create_post by the search verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup tools, stopping short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is the access requirement: 'Needs at least Basic access; the free tier cannot read.' This gives a condition for when the tool is available, but no explicit guidance on when to choose it over x_get_post, x_list_operations, or x_call. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server