Open an X/Twitter post URL, optionally reusing an existing tab, and return a structured record with author, text, media, and visible stats.
Open a post and return a structured post record with author, text, media, and visible stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full X/Twitter post URL. | |
| tabId | No | Optional existing X tab id to reuse instead of opening another tab. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: that the tool opens/navigates a post (a side effect, not a pure read) and that stats are limited to those 'visible' in the session. It stops short of stating auth requirements, tab-creation side effects, or rate limits.
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 that names the operation and the output shape with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
The description names the return record fields, which partly compensates for the absence of an output schema. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about side effects, permissions, and how it differs from x_open_post; that boundary gap directly affects correct tool selection.
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%, and both parameters (url, tabId) are documented in the schema, including the meaning of reusing an existing tab. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Open a post') and enumerates the returned record fields (author, text, media, visible stats), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like x_open_post or x_get_post_thread, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With siblings x_open_post and x_get_post_thread present, the agent gets no signal for choosing x_extract_post over them, which is a real selection hazard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.