Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official

Publish a long-form Article to X

post_x_article

Publish long-form Articles to a connected X account from Markdown, or save a draft for review. Converts headings, lists, links and tables into X's Article format and flags lossy content.

Instructions

Publish a long-form ARTICLE to the user’s connected X (Twitter) account — X’s own long-form format, which is a different thing from a long POST. Give it a title and a body written in MARKDOWN (or plain prose) and Hermoso converts it into the DraftJS content_state structure X requires: headings, paragraphs, bulleted and numbered lists, blockquotes, bold / italic / strikethrough, links, horizontal rules, fenced code blocks and pipe tables all carry across. FORMATTING IS NEVER SILENTLY DROPPED — anything X Articles cannot represent (inline code, an inline image) REFUSES the article for free and names exactly what and why, and allowLossy: true is the explicit way to publish it as plain text anyway. THE HARD LIMIT TO PLAN AROUND: X allows only about 10 Article DRAFTS and 5 Article PUBLISHES per account per DAY, it publishes that cap nowhere, and it counts a FAILED attempt against them — so never iterate on an article by republishing it, and use publish: false to save a draft for the user to read in X’s own composer when they want to review before it goes out. This PUBLISHES immediately and PUBLICLY: show the user the full text and get an explicit yes first, because a published Article can NEVER be edited (X’s own rule — edit_x_post will refuse it) and the only remedy is to delete and republish, which costs another of the five. An Article appears in the timeline as a title card, not as body text; readers open it. Costs credits (X bills per API request, and this is three of them). Needs X connected (Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ X).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesthe article body, as markdown or plain prose. Markdown headings, lists, quotes, links, emphasis, ``` code fences and | pipe | tables | are all converted to X’s own Article structure.
hookNoWHAT ANGLE THIS POST IS BUILT ON — the single most valuable field here, and the only moment it can ever be recorded. post_performance groups on it to answer "which hooks work", and it needs 5 posts sharing ONE hook before it will call anything a winner, so REUSE THE SAME WORDING across a campaign instead of rephrasing it every time. Best of all, pass a hook id from list_hooks (e.g. "direct_callout", "mid_problem", "before_after") — those fold onto a stable key however they are spelled, so a whole brand accumulates evidence on one row. Your own wording is fine too; it just only groups when you repeat it exactly. Omitting it means this post can never vote on which hook works.
titleYesthe Article title — X requires one and refuses a draft without it. This is what shows on the timeline card.
publishNodefault true. Pass false to save it as a DRAFT in the account’s X Articles composer instead — nothing becomes public, the user can review and publish it from X, and it does not spend one of the five daily publishes.
subjectNoWHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT — the product, feature, offer or theme (e.g. "winter coat", "free trial", "founder story"). The second grouping axis in post_performance. Same rule as hook: reuse the exact wording so posts about one subject land in one group.
headingsNohow headings are rendered. “blocks” (default) uses X’s own heading block types for # and ## headings; ### and deeper become bold lines, because X Articles refuse a third-level heading (the reply says so). “text” renders every heading as a BOLD standalone paragraph instead: the words survive and the heading structure does not, and the reply says so.
allowLossyNopublish even though part of the source cannot be represented on X, rendering those parts as plain text. OFF by default and it should usually stay off — silently publishing a user’s copy with formatting missing is worse than refusing and telling them.
coverImageUrlNooptional cover picture for the Article — a Hermoso render URL or an upload_file url. Must be a STILL image; X Article covers are not videos.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.230
    • changedInput schema / properties / headings / description
      Previous value: -"how headings are rendered. “blocks” (default) uses X’s own heading block types, which is the faithful conversion. “text” renders each heading as a BOLD standalone paragraph instead: the words survive and the heading structure does not, the reply says so, and it is the documented fallback if X’s Articles service rejects heading blocks."New value: +"how headings are rendered. “blocks” (default) uses X’s own heading block types for # and ## headings; ### and deeper become bold lines, because X Articles refuse a third-level heading (the reply says so). “text” renders every heading as a BOLD standalone paragraph instead: the words survive and the heading structure does not, and the reply says so."
  2. Addedv0.1.161

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: undocumented daily caps (~10 drafts / 5 publishes, failed attempts count against them), irreversibility of published Articles ('edit_x_post will refuse it'), credit/API-request cost ('three of them'), and the X-connection prerequisite. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered; a 4 rather than 5 because the description does not cover return behavior, though none is exposed via an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the highest-stakes facts (what it publishes, the daily caps, irreversibility) ahead of secondary detail. It is dense and leans on ALL-CAPS emphasis, which is effective for scanning but borders on shouting; still, nearly every sentence carries operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world publishing tool with no output schema, the description covers the gaps an agent needs: auth requirement, cost, rate limits, lossy-conversion policy, draft-vs-publish switch, and irreversibility. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in depth (including detailed hook/subject grouping semantics). The description reinforces a few key behaviors (markdown title/body, `allowLossy` as the explicit lossy escape hatch, `publish: false` for drafts) but adds little syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a long-form ARTICLE to the user's connected X account') and explicitly distinguishes it from the nearest confusion point: X's long-form format 'is a different thing from a long POST', which separates it from post_to_x. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('use `publish: false` to save a draft for the user to read in X's own composer when they want to review before it goes out') and a hard when-not ('never iterate on an article by republishing it'). It also sets a workflow precondition: show the full text and get an explicit yes first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools