Retrieve X posts by ID to view author, metrics, media, and referenced posts; send up to 100 IDs, optionally choose an authorized account. Billed per post.
Look up posts by ID (1-100), with author, metrics, media and referenced posts. Billed per post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| account | No | X username of an authorized account (see list_accounts). Omit to use the default account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context not in the annotations: batch cap of 100 IDs and 'Billed per post', which warns the agent of a per-item cost. Pagination/return shape is not discussed, keeping it from a 5.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key constraint (by ID) and the cost caveat front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data (author, metrics, media, referenced posts) and the billing behavior. Only pagination/formatting details are absent, which is minor here.
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 50%: 'account' is fully documented in the schema while 'ids' has only type/maxItems/minItems and no description. The description compensates by clarifying the ID range (1-100), which matches maxItems, so it adds some value but leaves ID format unstated.
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?
States a specific verb (look up), resource (posts), and access method (by ID) with the batch range 1-100, plus the return contents. That implicitly separates it from search and get_timeline, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'By ID' implies it's for known IDs versus search/timeline discovery, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites are given. The billing note hints at cost-awareness but is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.