X MCP Server

by siddheshutd

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

like-tweet

Like a tweet on X by specifying the tweet ID and user ID.

Instructions

Like a specific tweet

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tweetId": "<tweetId>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "like-tweet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	Yes	The ID of the X user who will like the tweet.
`tweetId`	Yes	The ID of the tweet to like

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error behavior, or effects on other resources.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise, but it lacks necessary detail, making it merely adequate rather than optimally informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavioral implications, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3.

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?

The description 'Like a specific tweet' clearly states the action (like) and the resource (tweet), and is distinct from sibling tools like unlike-tweet and retweet.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retweet or quote-a-tweet. Also no mention of authentication requirements or preconditions.

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