Publish a thread of connected Twitter/X posts from an ordered tweet list, with optional media and draft-only composer filling.
Post a thread (multiple connected tweets) on Twitter/X.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tweets | Yes | Array of tweets in the thread, in order | |
| draftOnly | No | If true, fill the thread composer but do not click send |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a public-facing mutation. It does not disclose that posting is irreversible/public, whether auth is required, what happens if the thread partially fails, or anything about the draftOnly mode that the schema exposes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and the thread concept come first. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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 publishing mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: whether the response returns thread IDs/URLs and how draftOnly interacts with posting. The gaps are material for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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%, including descriptions for 'text', media fields, images, and draftOnly, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it (e.g., ordering semantics of the tweets array), which is the baseline case.
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 gives a specific verb (Post) and resource (a thread), and the parenthetical 'multiple connected tweets' distinguishes it conceptually from the singular post_tweet sibling. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over post_tweet, submit_reply, or quote_tweet, and no prerequisites are stated. The only implied usage is that a thread means multiple tweets, which an agent could infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.