Retrieve one saved X post by ID or URL, including full text, image text, quoted post, full Article text, and contained links for complete bookmark or like review.
One saved post in full, by its id or x.com/twitter.com URL: complete text, text read from its images, the post it quotes, the full text of an X Article, and the links it contains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating what comes back: full text, OCR of image text, quoted post, full X Article text, and contained links — an agent knows the payload is enriched, not raw.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the action and keying method first, followed by an enumeration of return content. Dense but every clause (images, quotes, article text, links) conveys distinct payload information; no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly shouldered the return-value burden and did so thoroughly. However, it leaves gaps around failure behavior (invalid id, non-saved post), and doesn't clarify whether 'saved post' restricts the lookup to the user's library versus any public post.
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?
The single schema parameter 'post' has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does, specifying that it accepts either a post id or an x.com/twitter.com URL. That accepted-format detail is the key semantic an agent needs and is absent from the schema.
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 retrieval action (fetch one saved post in full) on a specific resource, scoped to 'saved post' and passable by id or URL. The 'one ... in full' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools (search_saves, recent_saves), though it never names them.
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?
Usage is implied: use when you already hold a post id or x.com/twitter.com URL and want that single post. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_saves or recent_saves, and no guidance on what happens if the post isn't in the saved library.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.