Create a new post on X from the home composer. Verifies button state and falls back to real typing if X rejects the input.
Create a new X post from the home composer with button-state verification and automatic real-typing fallback if X rejects the initial input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Post text to publish. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful internal behavior: button-state verification and an automatic real-typing fallback when X rejects the initial input. However, it omits key operational facts for a public, non-reversible write — whether authentication is required, where in the UI it must be invoked, and whether the post can be undone or deleted.
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 verb and target are first, and the fallback detail is a reasonable behavioral note rather than padding. It is tight, though the composer/verification detail is arguably implementation-level rather than selection-level.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should also say what a successful call yields (post ID/URL) or what failure looks like; it does not. It covers the mechanism adequately for a one-parameter tool but leaves the agent without any return-value or error expectations.
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% with a single, self-explanatory 'text' parameter, so the schema already does the work and the description adds no syntax, length-limit, or formatting guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 precise verb+resource ('Create a new X post') plus the mechanism scope ('from the home composer'), which implicitly separates it from the reply (x_reply_to_post) and quote (x_quote_post_task) siblings that compose from different surfaces. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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 only implied by 'Create a new X post' — the agent can infer this is the tool for a top-level post, but no alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are given (e.g., use x_reply_to_post for replies, x_quote_post_task for quotes). No prerequisites such as being logged in or on the home page are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.