Post a new tweet to X (Twitter) by providing text. Optionally include a tweet ID to reply to or quote in the same post.
Post a new tweet to X (Twitter)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The content of the tweet | |
| quote_tweet_id | No | Optional: Tweet ID to quote | |
| reply_to_tweet_id | No | Optional: Tweet ID to reply to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys the core behavior (creating and publishing a tweet) but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or irreversibility. For a simple, well-known action this is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward action.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description plus schema is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention response/error behavior, but that omission is minor for a basic create operation.
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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (text, quote_tweet_id, reply_to_tweet_id). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, meriting the baseline score.
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 'Post a new tweet to X (Twitter)' uses a specific verb (post) and a specific resource (tweet on X/Twitter), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is not a tautology and needs no sibling differentiation because no siblings exist.
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 action is unambiguous — the tool is for creating a new tweet. There are no sibling tools to contrast with and no prerequisites to list, so the description's clear context is sufficient, even though it doesn't explicitly state 'use when...' or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.