x_organic_mentionsFetch X/Twitter mentions for your account or a managed user_id to monitor conversations and respond to inbound engagement.
GET /2/users/:id/mentions for the authenticated user (or a named user_id you manage).
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external data changes. The description adds the user-scope detail but does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations, so the bar is lower, but additional context beyond the safety profile is minimal.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the endpoint and key scope. There is no wasted language, and the structure efficiently conveys the core function.
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 listing tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond the token parameter, which an agent would need to correctly interpret results. Given the lack of an output schema, more detail on response contents would be expected.
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% (only pagination_token has a description). The description clarifies user_id by indicating it can be the authenticated user or a managed user, which adds value. However, max_results is left unexplained in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving mentions for a user via a specific GET endpoint, and specifies the user scope (authenticated or managed). It names the resource 'mentions' distinctly from siblings like posts or timeline, but does not explicitly contrast with similar list tools such as x_organic_user_posts or x_organic_my_timeline.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative listing tools. It implies it is for viewing mentions but does not state conditions, exclusions, or reasons to choose it over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.