x_organic_unrepostRemove your retweet of a specific post from X/Twitter. Explicit confirmation ensures the action is intentional and prevents accidental unreposts.
DELETE /2/users/:id/retweets/:tweet_id. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true after the user explicitly named this action. Never set on your own. | |
| post_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the DELETE method and confirm requirement add modest context. The description does not explain side effects beyond the endpoint, such as whether the original post is unaffected or what happens on a non-existent repost. It does not contradict 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?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. Both sentences carry necessary information: the exact endpoint and the confirmation requirement.
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 two-parameter action with destructive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks a clear statement that this removes the authenticated user's repost of a given post and does not explicitly map post_id to the path's tweet_id. No output schema exists, so some behavioral detail would help.
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 50%, with confirm already well described in the schema. The endpoint path provides a weak hint that post_id corresponds to tweet_id, but the description does not otherwise clarify parameters. It mostly duplicates the confirm requirement rather than adding new semantic value.
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 verb (DELETE) and resource (retweets/:tweet_id), and the title 'Undo repost' makes the intent clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like x_organic_repost by the DELETE method and retweet resource. However, it relies on API-path shorthand rather than a plain-language statement of what is removed.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like x_organic_delete_post or x_organic_repost. The only usage-related instruction is 'Requires confirm=true', which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use or when-not-to-use guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.