x_organic_lookup_userLook up an X/Twitter user by exact username or numeric ID to retrieve profile data for organic community management and engagement.
Look up a user by username (without inventing @handles) or by numeric id. Uses GET /2/users/by/username/:username or GET /2/users/:id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | Numeric user id | |
| username | No | Handle without a leading @, supplied by the user |
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 and openWorldHint. The description adds value by naming the concrete GET endpoints and clarifying the lookup is by username or numeric ID, without contradicting the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the action and lookup keys are front-loaded, and the endpoint detail forms a useful second sentence without unnecessary explanation.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately identifies the two input choices and the endpoint behavior. It leaves the exactly-one-parameter constraint implicit, but the schema descriptions and readOnlyHint cover most of what an agent needs.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameter descriptions already document numeric user_id and @-less username. The description restates these and adds the endpoint mapping, but provides little semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
Opens with 'Look up a user by username... or by numeric id', naming the exact resource, action, and lookup keys. The title 'Lookup one user' plus the singular wording clearly distinguishes it from sibling x_organic_lookup_users.
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?
The description implies this is for exact user lookup and warns not to invent @handles, but it does not explicitly contrast with x_organic_lookup_users, x_organic_search_users, or state when to choose this tool over those alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.