x_organic_liked_postsFetch liked posts for a specified user, defaulting to the authenticated account. Use pagination tokens to navigate through results up to 100 per request.
GET /2/users/:id/liked_tweets. Defaults to the authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | ||
| max_results | No | ||
| pagination_token | No | pagination_token from a previous meta.next_token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail—defaulting to the authenticated user—but does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, or any rate-limit/auth nuances. It adds some context beyond the annotations but not much.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single two-sentence definition with no filler, and the endpoint is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple read-only list tool, though one additional sentence about pagination or return contents would not have hurt.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple optional-parameter GET endpoint, the description plus schema covers the basics: what resource is accessed, optional user_id, max_results bounds, and pagination token source. However, without an output schema, the absence of any information about the shape or contents of the response leaves an agent to infer those details from endpoint semantics alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies user_id implicitly via 'Defaults to the authenticated user.' max_results is left entirely to its name and min/max bounds, and pagination_token only repeats the schema's brief 'from a previous meta.next_token' hint. The tool description does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific endpoint (GET /2/users/:id/liked_tweets) and a clear resource: a user's liked posts. The title and endpoint make it distinguishable from sibling tools like x_organic_user_posts and x_organic_list_bookmarks, though it relies on endpoint naming rather than a plain-language statement of behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to select this tool over related alternatives such as list_bookmarks, user_posts, or my_timeline. The phrase 'Defaults to the authenticated user' gives some context about the user_id parameter, but no scenario, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.