ShipPost MCP

retweet

Retweet a specific tweet by providing its tweet ID. Use this action to share or amplify posts directly from your agent.

Instructions

Retweet a tweet.

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": {
      "tweet_id": "<tweet_id>"
    },
    "name": "retweet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tweet_id`	Yes	The ID of the tweet to retweet

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning public visibility, side effects, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of a single, direct sentence. It is not verbose, and the phrasing is clear, though it could include slightly more context without becoming bloated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of authentication requirements or the fact that the retweet becomes public, which would improve completeness.

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 covers the single parameter (tweet_id) with a clear description, so the description adds no additional detail. At 100% coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'retweet' and the resource 'a tweet', which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like post_tweet, reply_to_tweet, and like_tweet. It unambiguously identifies the action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action name.

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

Deploy Server